Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
AGENDA - Council - 20050208
ta TOWN OF AURORA COUNCIL AGENDA NO.05-04 iUESDAY,FEBR9ARY 8,2005 1:00 P.NL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AURORA TOWN NAIL PUBLIC RELEASE 04/02/05 TOWN OF AURORA COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA NO. 05-04 Tuesday, February 8, 2005 7:00 P.M. OPEN FORUM — COUNCIL MEETING TO FOLLOW I DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST U APPROVAL OFAGENDA RECOMMENDED: THAT the content of the Agenda as circulated by the Corporate Services Department be approved as presented. Ill ADOPTION OF MINUTES Council Minutes of January 25, 2005, Meeting Number 05-02 and Special Council — Public Planning Minutes of January 26, 2005, Meeting Number 05- 03 RECOMMENDED: THAT the Council Minutes from Meeting Number 05-02 and the Special Council — Public Planning Minutes from Meeting Number 05-03 be adopted as printed and circulated. IV PRESENTATIONS V DETERMINATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION Council Meeting No. 05-04 Page 2 of 9 Tuesday, February 8, 2005 VI ADOPTION OF ITEMS NOT REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION VIl DELEGATIONS M CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION IX REGIONAL REPORT X OTHER BUSINESS, COUNCILLORS XI READING OF BY-LAWS RECOMMENDED: THAT the following listed by-laws be given 1 st, 2nd and 3rd readings, and enacted: 4550-04.D BEING A BY-LAW to (pg. B-1) adopt Official Plan Amendment No. 55 (Employment Retention Strategy) 4579-041 BEING A BY-LAW to (pg. B-2) authorize the acquisition of land described as Block D, Plan 514 (Region of York.) 4580-04.L BEING A BY-LAW to (pg. B-4) authorize the conveyance of land described as Part of Blocks C, E and F, Plan 475 and Part of Lots 10 and 12, Plan 246 (Region of York). 4629-05.P BEING A BY-LAW to (pg. B-6) amend the Licensing Fees Schedule of the Business Licensing By-law No. 4258-01.P Council Meeting No. 05-04 Tuesday, February 8, 2005 Page 3 of 9 4630-05.F BEING A BY-LAW to amend By-law 3487-93, being a by-law regulating Building Permits and Inspections for the Town of Aurora. (Schedules A and B — Fees 4635-05.F BEING A BY-LAW to establish a schedule of fees for applications, permits, the sale of Town publications, and to prescribe service charges for administrative matters. 4636-05.17 BEING A BY-LAW to establish a schedule of fees for applications made in respect of Planning matters. 4639-05.F BEING A BY-LAW to establish a schedule of fees for applications, permits, the sale of Town publications, and to prescribe service charges for administrative matters for the Leisure Services Department. 4640-05.H BEING A BY-LAW to appoint Aurora's member to the Joint Board of Management of the York Region Courts. (B. Panizza) 4641.05.0 BEING A BY-LAW to confirm actions by Council resulting from the meeting of February 8, 2005. (pg. B-10) (pg. B-16) (pg. B-26) (pg. B-31) (pg. B-36) (pg. B-37) Council Meeting No. 05-04 Page 4 of 9 Tuesday, February 8, 2005 Xll IN CAMERA Legal & Personnel Matters THAT Council proceed In Camera to address legal and personnel matters. X111 ADJOURNMENT Council Meeting No. 05-04 Tuesday, February 8, 2005 Page 5 of 9 AGENDA ITEMS 1. General Committee Meeting Report No. 05-03 (pg. 1) Tuesday, February 1, 2005 RECOMMENDED: THAT the Report of the General Committee Meeting No. 05-03 be received and the recommendations carried by the Committee be adopted. 2. EAC05-02 - January 24, 2005 Environmental Advisory (pg. 6) Committee Meeting RECOMMENDED: 1. THAT the Committee Record of the Environmental Advisory Committee Meeting EAC05-02 held on January 24, 2005 be received for information. 3. ACCESS05-01 - January 24, 2005 Environmental Advisory (pg. 11) Committee Meeting RECOMMENDED: 1. THAT the Committee Record of the Accessibility Advisory Meeting held on January 27, 2005 be received for information; and 2. Approval of Previous Minutes THAT Accessibility Advisory Committee Minutes Number 04-05 of October 28, 2004 be approved. 3. Committee Report AA05-01 - Accessibility Audits of Town Owned Facilities THAT the Accessibility Advisory Committee recommends to Council that the Town engage the services of Associated Planning Consultants Inc., based on their response to the Request for Proposal CS2004-81 at a cost of $19,700 plus taxes, for the purpose of conducting an accessibility audit of four Town owned buildings; and THAT the funding for this project be allocated from the 2004 Accessibility Advisory Committee budget. Council Meeting No. 05-04 Page 6 of 9 Tuesday, February 8, 2005 4. Committee Report AA05-02 - Sensitivity Training Seminar for Town Staff THAT the Accessibility Advisory Committee recommends to Council that the Town engage the services of Kim Archer & Associates at a cost of $3,200 plus taxes and travel costs, for the purpose of conducting Disability Awareness Workshops for Town staff; and THAT the funding for this project be allocated from the 2004 Accessibility Advisory Committee budget. 5. Determination of the Project Priority List for the 2005 Accessibility Plan THAT the surplus funds from the 2004 Accessibility Advisory Committee operating budget be allocated to an Accessibility Reserve Fund; and THAT $100,000 be allocated to the 2005 Accessibility Advisory Committee Operating Budget. 6. Selection of Chair and Vice -Chair THAT Catherine Couchman be appointed Chair of the Accessibility Advisory Committee for 2005; and THAT John Lenchak be appointed Vice -Chair of the Accessibility Advisory Committee for 2005. 4. Memorandum from Councillor West (pg. 17) Re: Council Attendance - Minutes RECOMMENDED: THAT the minutes report Members in attendance after the meeting has been called to order as "present', and those Members not present as ..absent"; and THAT arrival and departure times be recorded for Council Members who arrive after the meeting has been called to order and for those Members who leave before the adjournment of the meeting; and THAT for all committees of Council, councillors and citizens be recorded in the same way. Council Meeting No. 05-04 Tuesday, February 8, 2005 Page 7 of 9 5. Memorandum from Director of Planning Re: Employment Retention Strategy (OPA 55) RECOMMENDED: THAT Official Plan Amendment No. 55 be adopted; and THAT By-law 4550-04.D be enacted. 6. TR05-010 — 2005 Fees and Service Charges RECOMMENDED: (pg. 18) (pg. 29) THAT the 2005 Fees and Service Charges for licences and services itemized on the attached schedules be approved; and THAT By-laws: ➢ Business Licencing fees - 4629-05.P ➢ General Administration fees-4635-05.F ➢ Leisure Services Fees - 4639-05.F ➢ Planning Fees under the Planning Act - 4636-05.F ➢ Building Fees under the Building Code - 4630-05.1' be enacted at the February 8, 2005 Council meeting. 7. LS05-009 — Fees and Service Charges (pg. 64) RECOMMENDED: THAT Council approve the amendments to By-law 4535-04.F to the Department of Leisure Services Existing Fees and Service Charges. 8. TR05-014— Community Survey (Revised Questionnaire) (pg. 71) RECOMMENDED: THAT Council approve the use of the attached revised survey questionnaire to conduct the community survey; and THAT Council approve the use of the attached advertisement in the Town Page and on the Web site to promote participation in the community survey. Council Meeting No. 05-04 Tuesday, February 8, 2005 Page 8 of 9 9. TR05-013 — Purchasing By-law (Supplementary Report) (pg. 94) RECOMMENDED: THAT Council reaffirm the Purchasing By-law that was approved on December 14, 2004. 10. PL05-005 — Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments (pg. 100) D09-09-03 and D14-27-03, respectively Lebovic Enterprises Inc. and Revlis Ltd. Part 6 of Plan 65R-14776 and Blocks 7, 8, 9, & 11 of Plan 65M-2718, Industrial Parkway North RECOMMENDED: THAT Council endorse report PL05-005; and THAT report PL05-005 and Council's resolution related thereto be forwarded to the Ontario Municipal Board for its information in connection with the hearing to be convened in connection with the appeals filed by Lebovic Enterprises Inc. and Revlis Ltd.; and THAT staff and such additional outside experts as required attend at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing regarding the subject applications to continue to defend Town Council's position of non-support of the proposed industrial conversion. 11. CS05-004— 2005 Full time Non Union Group Salary (pg. 131) Recommendation RECOMMENDED: THAT Council approve the revisions to the Salary and Classification Schedules prescribed by Administration Procedure No. 7 to provide effective April 1, 2005 , 4% ; June 1, 2005, 2% ; October 1, 2005, 1% ; April 1, 2006, 3% ; and June 1, 2006 2% salary adjustments to full-time non -union employees; and THAT Council approve revisions to Administration Procedure No. 18 to provide for adjustments in the vacation entitlement for non union full time staff: and THAT Council approve revisions to the Benefits plan prescribed by Administration Procedure No. 20 to provide for adjustments in the extended health benefits (prescription drug deductible); and Council Meeting No. 05-04 Tuesday, February 8, 2005 Page 9 of 9 THAT staff be authorized to update, circulate and implement the revisions to the Schedules appended to Administration Procedure No. 7, No. 18, and No. 20 in accordance with Council approval. COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 TOWN OF AURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING REPORT NO. 05-03 Council Chambers Aurora Town Hall Tuesday, February 1, 2005 ATTENDANCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS Councillor Gaertner in the Chair; Mayor Jones, Councillors Buck, Vrancic, Wallace and West. MEMBERS ABSENT Councillor Hogg was absent, Councillor Kean was away on business, Councillor Morris was on vacation. OTHER ATTENDEES Chief Administrative Officer, Director of Corporate Services/Town Clerk, Director of Building, Director of Leisure. Services, Director of Planning, Director of Public Works, Treasurer, Town Solicitor, and Council/Committee Secretary. Councillor Gaertner called the meeting to;order at 7:00 p.m. DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST There were no declarations of pecuniary interest under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. 11 APPROVAL OF AGENDA General Committee recommends: THAT the content of the Agenda as circulated by the Corporate Services Department, with the following additional item, be approved: ➢ Memo from the CAD Re: Budget Timetabling/February — March, 2005 CARRIED III DETERMINATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION Items 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 were identified for discussion. -1- COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 General Committee Report No. 05-03 Page 2 of 5 Tuesday, February 1, 2005 IV ADOPTION OF ITEMS NOT REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION General Committee recommends: THAT the following recommendations respecting the matters listed as "Items not Requiring Separate Discussion" be adopted as submitted to the Committee and staff be authorized to take all necessary action required to give effect to same: 4. TR05-009 -Treasury Department Office Renovations THAT the report regarding Treasury Department Office Renovations be received. 5. PL05-011 — Site Plan Application Bayview Business Park Inc. Part of Lot 1, Registered Plan 65M-3074 108-224 Hollidge Boulevard - File D11-15-03 THAT Report PL05-011 be received for information; and THAT, subject to a satisfactory review by the Site Plan Committee, the Director of Planning be authorized to execute a site plan agreement between Bayview Business Park Inc. and the Town of Aurora, respecting the construction of four commercial buildings on the subject lands. 6. PL05.012 — Planning Applications Status List THAT the Planning Applications Status List be received for information. 9. CS05-006— Council Pending List -Status Report THAT CS05-006 be received for information purposes. CARRIED -2- COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 General Committee Report No. 05-03 Page 3 of 5 Tuesday, February 1, 2005 V DELEGATIONS (a) Mr. Dino Lombardi, Economic Development Officer and Ms Kristen Yemm, Marketing/Communications Co-ordinator Re: Item 1 - ADM05-003 - Branding the Town of Aurora - Developing a Tagline Ms Kristen Yemm, Marketing/Communications Co-ordinator, advised of the purpose and merit of having a tagline to accompany the recently approved Town of Aurora marketing logo. Ms Yemm provided the Committee with a background of the process followed by staff and the Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC) to research and a produce an extensive list of taglines. Ms Yemm advised that the list was carefully reviewed and refined by EDAC resulting in the final four taglines for consideration this evening. Mr. Dino Lombardi, Economic Development Officer introduced the following four taglines for consideration: ➢ A Secret Worth Sharing ➢ Location Has Its Advantages ➢ Your Brightest Idea Yet ➢ Our Town — Your Future Mr. Lombardi requested that the Committee select one tagline and forward the decision to Council for final approval on February 8, 2005. General Committee recommends: THAT the comments of the delegates be received and that Item 1 - ADM05-003 - Branding the Town of Aurora - Developing a Tagline be brought forward for discussion. CARRIED VI CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION 1. ADM05-003 — Branding the Town of Aurora — Developing a Tagline General Committee recommends: THAT "Our Town — Your Future" be adopted as the new tagline for the Town of Aurora; and THAT the selected tagline be forwarded to Council for approval on February 8, 2005. CARRIED 2. TR05-002 - Purchasing By-law General Committee recommends: THAT Council reaffirm the Purchasing By-law that was approved on December 14, 2004, in principle on the understanding that staff will provide additional documentation outlining the practices used by staff to conduct informal quotations. CARRIED -3- COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 General Committee Report No. 05-03 Page 4 of 5 Tuesday, February 1, 2005 3. TR05-003 - Community Survey General Committee recommends: THAT Council approve the use of the attached survey questionnaire to conduct the community survey, with the understanding that the survey be reviewed once more and all inaccurate references be removed; and THAT the revised survey questionnaire be provided to Council for consideration on February 8, 2005; and THAT Council approve the use of the attached advertisement in the Town Page and on the Town Website to promote participation in the community survey. CARRIED Request for Reconsideration - Councillor Gaertner Re: Correspondence and Additional Information from the Region of York - Local Health Integration Networks (LHIN) (Originally received by Council on January 11, 2005) General Committee recommends: . THAT the item be received for information. CARRIED 8. ADM04.018 — Proposed Exchange of Lands — Region of York General Committee recommends: THAT the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute an Offer to Sell Agreement between the Town and the Region of York respecting an exchange of lands and easements; and THAT By-law 4579-041, being a by-law to acquire certain lands described as Block D, Plan 514 be enacted; and THAT By-law 4580-041, being a by-law to convey certain lands described as Part of Blocks C, E and F, Plan 475 and to grant a right of way and watermain easement over Part of Blocks C and F, Plan 475 and Part of Lots 10 and 12, Plan 246 be enacted. CARRIED VII OTHER BUSINESS, COUNCILLORS Memo from the CAD Re: Budget Timetabling/February— March, 2005 (Added Item) General Committee recommends: THAT the suggested timetable for Capital and Operating Budget Processes for February and March 2005 be approved as follows: February 19, 2005 (9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.) - Finalize draft Capital Budget and commence draft Operating Budget/Departmental presentations and considerations; —4— COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 General Committee Report No. 05-03 Page 5 of 5 Tuesday, February 1, 2005 • February 26, 2005 (9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.) Finalize draft Operating Budget/Departmental presentations and considerations; • March 7, 2005 (7:00 p.m.) - Public Meeting/Capital and Operating Budgets; • March 22, 2005 - Capital and Operating Budgets to General Committee for recommendation to Council for approval; • March 29, 2005 - Council approval of Capital and Operating Budgets for 2005, CARRIED Mayor Jones advised that the Annual Big Brothers & Big Sisters "Bowl for Kids' Sake" event is taking place on Saturday, Feb. 191°, and he encouraged staff to participate by joining the Town of Aurora Team scheduled to bowl at 5:00 p.m. Councillor Vrancic advised that he will be away on vacation during the Budget meetings scheduled for February 19 and February. 26, however he advised that he will provide his comments in writing prior to those dates, for consideration at those meetings. Councillor West provided Notice of Motion with respect to Councillors' attendance at scheduled meetings. Councillor Buck advised that Council meetings formerly began at 8:00 p.m. with a preliminary Open Forum session from 7:40 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Councillor Buck suggested that members of Council consider revisiting this timetable. Vlll IN CAMERA None IX ADJOURNMENT General Committee recommends: THAT the meeting be adjourned at 8:25 p.m. CARRIED THE REPORT OF THE GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING 05-03 IS SUBJECT TO FINAL APPROVAL AT COUNCIL ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2005. -5- COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 A ENDA ITEM # a 'TOWN OF AURORA® COUNCIL REPORT No. EAC05-02 Pw/ SUBJECT: January 24, 2005 Environmental Advisory Committee Meeting FROM: Chair Council Members Committee Members DATE: February 8, 2005 RECOMMENDATIONS - Councillor Morris - Councillor Gaertner - Robert Cook, Susan Walmer and Klaus Wehrenberg 1. THAT the Committee Record of the Environmental Advisory Committee Meeting, held on January 24, 2005, be received for information. BACKGROUND Attached for the information of Council are the Minutes of the Environmental Advisory Committee Meeting EAC05-02, held on January 24, 2005. COMMENTS Nil OPTIONS Nil CONCLUSIONS Nil FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS None ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of Committee Record No. EAC 05-02. Prepared by: Karen Ewart, Administrative Co-ordinator/Deputy Clerk, ext. 4222 Councillor Phyllis Morris, Chair Environmental Advisory Committee COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 ATTACHMENT-1 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECORD SUB -COMMITTEES ORIENTATION MEETING NO. 05-02 Date: Time and Location: Committee Members Regrets: Staff Attendees: Monday, January 24, 2005 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers - Aurora Town Hall, 1 Municipal Drive Councillor Morris, Chair, Councillor Gaertner, Robert Cook, Darryl Moore, Susan Walmer, Klaus Wehrenberg Mary Hill, Ellen Mole, Darryl Moore Wayne Jackson, Director of Public Works Karyn Bagley, Council/Committee Secretary Councillor Morris called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. 1. Councillor Morris, Chair of the Environmental Advisory Committee Welcoming Comments and Introduction of Committee Members and Staff Councillor Morris welcomed and thanked all those in attendance at the Special Environmental Advisory Committee Sub -Committees Orientation Session. Councillor Morris introduced the members of the Environmental Advisory Committee that were present, and the staff members in attendance. -7- COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 Environmental Advisory Committee Record No. 05-02 Page 2 of 4 Monday, January 24, 2005 2. Terms of Reference Councillor Morris explained that the purpose of the Environmental Advisory Committee, as detailed within the Committee's Terms of Reference, is to act as an Advisory Committee of Council on matters relating to the protection and enhancement of the environment. There are a number of environmental and sustainability issues being faced by the Environmental Advisory Committee so the advice and guidance of the Sub -Committee members is required. A copy of the Committee's Terms of Reference has been included in the agenda for reference purposes. 3. Overview of Staff Responsibilities The Director of Public Works thanked the Environmental Advisory Committee for inviting him to present at tonight's Orientation Session and introduced himself as the staff member who, as outlined in the Terms of Reference, is to provide technical assistance to the Committee. The Director of Public Works provided an overview of staff responsibilities, referencing the Organizational Chart for the Town. The Director of Public Works explained that all Departments, Committees, and Boards report to Council and it is the mandate of staff to carry out the policies, procedures and decisions of Council. The Director of Public Works advised that the Committee and Sub - Committee members work closely with the Corporate Services Department as they provide the administrative support for the Committee, and the Planning, Leisure Services, and Public Works Departments as they specifically deal with and address issues around the protection and enhancement of the environment. Moved by Klaus Wehrenberg Seconded by Sue Walmer THAT the presentation by the Director of Public Works on the Overview of Staff Responsibilities be received. CARRIED 4. Break out into sub -committees to establish first meeting and location and appoint recording personnel. Councillor Morris advised the Sub -Committees that all of their meetings must be held in a public facility and accessible to the general public. Once the meeting schedules are established, the meeting dates will be advertised on the Town Notice Board to allow for public participation. Councillor Morris explained the Schedule of Council Meetings as included in the Orientation Session agenda, and the timing of when Council is made aware of the activities of the Environmental Advisory Committee. Councillor Morris informed all COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 Environmental Advisory Committee Record No. 05-02 Page 3 of 4 Monday, January 24, 2005 those present that they are welcome to attend any Environmental Advisory Committee, General Committee, or Council meeting. Packages were handed out to the Chair of each Sub -Committee which included a template for the minutes, and a list of items that were referred by the Environmental Advisory Committee to the specific Sub -Committee. Moved by Klaus Wehrenberg Seconded by David Tomlinson THAT the Environmental Advisory Committee recess at this time to break out into Sub -Committees for discussion purposes. CARRIED Moved by Councillor Gaertner Seconded by Klaus Wehrenberg THAT the Environmental Advisory Committee meeting resumed in open session. CARRIED SUB -COMMITTEES REPORTS/UPDATES Councillor Morris advised that all Sub -Committee meetings need to be advertised two weeks in advance of the meeting on the Town's Bulletin Board. Councillor Morris is to follow up with Clerk's staff on the rules surrounding the advertisement of meetings as it may pose challenges to the progress and efficiency of the Sub - Committees. This will be addressed in the next scheduled Environmental Advisory Committee meeting. Councillor Morris is to confirm with Clerk's staff the date of the next Environmental Advisory Committee meeting. By-laws/Policy Councillor Gaertner advised that the By-laws/Policy Sub -Committee will be meeting on the third Thursday of every month starting on February 17, 2005 with the exception of March when they will meet on the fourth Thursday to accommodate the March Break. The Sub -Committee intends to create and circulate a list of what the members want to work on prior to the next meeting. NaturalizationNVildlife David Tomlinson advised that the Naturalization/Wildlife Sub -Committee will be meeting on the first Wednesday of each month starting on March 2, 2005. David Tomlinson inquired about the legalities around their Sub -Committee having onsite meetings to carry out studies. Councillor Morris will follow up with Clerk's staff MOM COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 Environmental Advisory Committee Record No. 05-02 Page 4 of 4 Monday, January 24, 2005 and provide information to the Sub -Committee on carrying out studies onsite in the next meeting. Planning Klaus Wehrenberg advised that the Planning Sub -Committee will be meeting on the first Monday of each month starting February 7, 2005. At the first meeting of the Planning Sub -Committee, members will discuss and determine their common goals for the Sub -Committee. Public Awareness/Education Sue Walmer advised that the Public Awareness/Education Sub -Committee will be meeting on the first Monday of each month starting on February 7, 2005. The discussion this evening for the Sub -Committee focused on what and where their role will be for public awareness as much of what they will do will stem from the activities of the other Sub -Committees. Waste Management Robert Cook advised the Committee that the Waste Management Sub -Committee will be meeting on the First Monday of each month starting February 7, 2005. Moved by Councillor Gaertner Seconded by Robert Cook That the Sub -Committee Reports/Updates be received. CARRIED ADJOURNMENT Moved by Sue Walmer Seconded by David Tomlinson THAT the meeting be adjourned at 8:35pm. CARRIED —10— COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 -TOWN OF AURORA _ COUNCIL REPORT No. ACCESS 05-01 SUBJECT: January 27, 2005 Accessibility Advisory Committee Meeting FROM: Chair John West Committee Members - Catherine Couchman, Vice -Chair; Jim Hamilton, Ivy Henriksen, Helen Kogan and John Lenchak DATE: February 8, 2005 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. THAT the Committee Record of the Accessibility Advisory Meeting held on January 27, 2005 be received for information; and 2. Approval of Previous Minutes THAT Accessibility Advisory Committee Minutes Number 04-05 of October 28, 2004 be approved. 3. Committee Report AA05-01 - Accessibility Audits of Town Owned Facilities THAT the Accessibility Advisory Committee recommends to Council that the Town engage the services of Associated Planning Consultants Inc., based on their response to the Request for Proposal CS2004-81 at a cost of $19,700 plus taxes, for the purpose of conducting an accessibility audit of four Town owned buildings; and THAT the funding for this project be allocated from the 2004 Accessibility Advisory Committee budget. 4. Committee Report AA05-02 - Sensitivity Training Seminar for Town Staff THAT the Accessibility Advisory Committee recommends to Council that the Town engage the services of Kim Archer & Associates at a cost of $3,200 plus taxes and travel costs, for the purpose of conducting Disability Awareness Workshops for Town staff, and THAT the funding for this project be allocated from the 2004 Accessibility Advisory Committee budget. -11- COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 February 8, 2005 - 2 - Report No. 05-01 5. Determination of the Project Priority List for the 2005 Accessibility Plan THAT the surplus funds from the 2004 Accessibility Advisory Committee operating budget be allocated to an Accessibility Reserve Fund, and THAT $100,000 be allocated to the 2005 Accessibility Advisory Committee Operating Budget. 6. Selection of Chair and Vice -Chair THAT Catherine Couchman be appointed Chair of the Accessibility Advisory Committee for 2005, and THAT John Lenchak be appointed Vice -Chair of the Accessibility Advisory Committee for 2005. ATTACHMENTS 1. Committee Record ACCESS 05-01 Prepared by: Karen Ewart, Administrative Co-ordinator f Coun ill r John West, Chair (tl'l Accessibility Advisory Committee -12- COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 ATTACHMENT-1 ut COMMITTEE RECORD MEETING NO. 05-01 Committee: Accessibility Advisory Committee Date: Thursday January 27, 2005 Time and Location: 3:00 p.m., Leksand Room Committee Members: Present: Councillor John West, Chair; Catherine Couchman, Vice Chair; Jim Hamilton, Ivy Henriksen, Helen Kogan and John Lenchak Other Attendees: Councillor Evelyn Buck, Bob Panizza, Director of Corporate Services/Town Clerk and Karen Ewart, Administrative Co- ordinator/Deputy Clerk The Chair called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Ivy Henriksen declared a conflict of interest regarding Item 2 pertaining to quotations for sensitivity training because she is a colleague of all three proponents. Ms Henriksen advised that she would take no part in the voting on this matter or attempt in any way to influence the voting on such questions. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING Accessibility Advisory Committee Minutes Number 04-05 of October 28, 2004. Moved by Catherine Couchman Seconded by Helen Kogan THAT Accessibility Advisory Committee Minutes Number 04-05 of October 28, 2004 be approved. CARRIED APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Moved by Ivy Henriksen Seconded by Helen Kogan THAT the agenda be adopted as circulated by Corporate Services. CARRIED —13— COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 Accessibility Advisory Committee Record No. 05-01 Page 2 of 4 Thursday January 27, 2005 MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION 1. Committee Report AA05-01 - Accessibility Audits of Town Owned Facilities The Director of Corporate Services provided the Committee with an overview of all three proposals submitted. Councillor Buck arrived at 3:21 p.m. The Committee reviewed the criteria by which each proposal was evaluated. The Director verbally provided the Committee with the reference questionnaire that was utilized during the reference check process. Moved by Ivy Henriksen Seconded by Jim Hamilton THAT the Accessibility Advisory Committee recommends to Council that the Town engage the services of Associated Planning Consultants Inc., based on their response to the Request for Proposal CS2004-81 at a cost of $19,700 plus taxes, for the purpose of conducting an accessibility audit of four Town owned buildings; and THAT the funding for this project be allocated from the 2004 Accessibility Advisory Committee budget. CARRIED 2. Committee Report AA05-02 - Sensitivity Training Seminar for Town Staff The Director of Corporate Services advised the Committee that he had received additional information regarding the sensitivity training from one of the proponents after the agenda was circulated, and distributed the information to the Members. The Committee reviewed all of the proposals and discussed options for the implementation of this new training program. Ivy Henriksen, having previously declared an interest in Item 2 pertaining to the sensitivity training, took no part in the vote regarding this matter. Ivy Henriksen left the meeting at 4:08 p.m. —14— COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 Accessibility Advisory Committee Record No. 05-01 Thursday January 27, 2005 Moved by Catherine Couchman Page 3 of 4 Seconded by Helen Kogan THAT the Accessibility Advisory Committee recommends to Council that the Town engage the services of Kim Archer & Associates at a cost of $3,200 plus taxes and travel costs, for the purpose of conducting Disability Awareness Workshops for Town staff; and THAT the funding for this project be allocated from the 2004 Accessibility Advisory Committee budget. t:: Ivy Henriksen returned to the meeting at 4:12 p.m. 3. Determination of the Protect Priority List for the 2005 Accessibility Plan The Committee reviewed the Draft List of Barriers to be addressed in 2005. The Director advised the Committee that the 2004 action items identified on the list had been provided to Senior Management Team for their action. John Lenchak arrived at 4:15 p.m. The Director requested that the Members review the 2003-2004 Accessibility Plan and the Draft List of Barriers to determine the list of priorities for 2005. The Committee agreed that the audit would probably re -prioritize matters to be addressed. The Committee discussed possible budget requirements to implement the various improvements Moved by Jim Hamilton Seconded by Catherine Couchman THAT the surplus funds from the 2004 Accessibility Advisory Committee operating budget be allocated to an Accessibility Reserve Fund. CARRIED Moved by Ivy Henriksen Seconded by John Lenchak THAT $100,000 be allocated to the 2005 Accessibility Advisory Committee Operating Budget. CARRIED —15— COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 Accessibility Advisory Committee Record No. 05-01 Thursday January 27, 2005 Page 4 of 4 The Director advised the Committee that the Draft List of Barriers 2005 will be updated for the February meeting to include what has been completed and what remains outstanding. OTHER BUSINESS BY MEMBERS 4. Selection of Chair and Vice -Chair The Chair advised the Committee that he had relinquished his position on the Committee and Councillor Buck had been appointed as the Council representative. Moved by Ivy Henriksen Seconded by Jim Hamilton THAT Catherine Couchman be appointed Chair of the Accessibility Advisory Committee for 2005. CARRIED Moved by Ivy Henriksen Seconded by Jim Hamilton THAT John Lenchak be appointed Vice -Chair of the Accessibility Advisory Committee for 2005. CARRIED ADJOURNMENT Moved by Helen Kogan THAT the meeting be adjourned at 4:45 p.m. CARRIED The next meeting of the Accessibility Advisory Committee will be held on Thursday, February 24, 2005 at 3:00 p.m. in the Leksand Room. —16— COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 Memo To: Members of Council From: Councillor John West Date: February 2, 2005 Re: Council Attendance Minutes I would ask Council's support for this resolution in regards to Council and Committee minutes reporting: 1. THAT the minutes report members in attendance after the meeting has been called to order as "present", and those members not present as "absent'; and, 2. THAT arrival and departure times be recorded for council members who arrive after the meeting has been called to order and for those members who leave before the adjournment of the meeting; and, 3. THAT for all committees of Council, councillors and citizens be recorded in the same way. Up until approximately 1978, the minutes of all meetings reported when councillors were absent, the same as we do at present. e.g. on business, illness, vacation, town function, etc. In approximately 1979, an incident happened in a local municipality where a council member's house was entered. Information was obtained that the person who had entered the house had learned that the said member was going to be on vacation from the town minutes. That town, Aurora, and some others changed the way that attendance was recorded in the minutes. It is also noted that for many years, in fact even now, the time citizens and councilors arrive and leave a meeting are reported. e.g. Leisure Services. Council, by adopting this motion, would make all minutes of Council -authorized meetings the same. I would appreciate Council's support for this motion. ='Councillor John West —17— COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 -AGENDA ITEM To: Mayor and Members of Council From:Sue Seibert, Director of Planning Date: February 2, 2005 Re: Employment Retention Strategy (OPA 55) The Employment Retention Strategy and implementing Official Plan Amendment No. 55 were considered at a Public Planning meeting on June 23, 2004 and subsequently OPA 55 was presented to General Committee on December 7, 2004. Staff have considered the delegations presented at the December 7, 2004 General Committee meeting (Lebovic and Whitwell/First Professional) and have determined that OPA 55 does not need to be revised in order to achieve the employment retention land retention goals of the municipality. Staff therefore suggests that Council adopt OPA 55 at the February.8, 2005'Council meeting. Furthermore Staff suggests that Lebovic and Whitwell/First Professional be notified that this item is to be presented for adoption at the February 8, 20.05 Council meeting. Yours tr ly eue Seibert, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning cc. Scott Somerville, C.A.O Bob Panizza, Town Clerk Dino Lombardi, Economic. Development Officer S:\Planning\C10 Reports to CounciKMayor and Council Memo -Employment retention strategy.doc 0 Page 1 COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 AMENDMENT NO. 55 TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN FOR THE TOWN OF AURORA -19- COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF AURORA By-law Number 4550-04.D BEING A BY-LAW to adopt Official Plan Amendment No. 55 The Council of the Corporation of the Town of Aurora, under Section 17 (22) of the Planning Act, RSO 1990 Chapter P. 13 as amended, hereby enacts as follows: 1. Official Plan Amendment No. 55 for the Town of Aurora, consisting of the attached explanatory text and schedules, is hereby adopted. 2. The Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to make such application on behalf of the Corporation and to execute under the Corporate Seal such documents as may be required for the above purposes. 3. This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the day of the final passage thereof. READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME THIS DAY OF ,2005. T. JONES, MAYOR B. PANIZZA, MUNICIPAL CLERK —20— COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 AMENDMENT NO. 55 TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN FOR THE TOWN OF AURORA PLANNING AREA The Amendment No. 55 to the Official Plan for the Town of Aurora Planning Area which was adopted by the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Aurora is hereby approved under Sections 17 and 21 of the Planning Act. Date: Neil Garbe, Director of Development Services Regional Municipality of York —21— COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 AMENDMENT NO. 55 TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN FOR THE TOWN OF AURORA STATEMENT OF COMPONENTS PAGE PART 1—THE PREAMBLE 1 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Purpose of the Amendment 1 3.0 Location 1 4.0 Basis of the Amendment 1 PART 2 — THE AMENDMENT `a 1.0 Introduction 2 2.0 Details of the Amendment 2 3.0 Implementation and Interpretation 4 Schedule "O" — Land Use Plan —22— COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 Town of Aurora — OPA # 55 1 PART 1 -THE PREAMBLE 1.0 INTRODUCTION This part of the Amendment entitled Part 1 —The Preamble, introduces the Amendment and describes the context and planning process leading to the document's preparation. It is for explanatory purposes only and does not form part of the Amendment. 2.0 PURPOSE The purpose of this amendment is implement a strategy for the retention of employment lands within the Town of Aurora and in order to establish site specific policies to restrict the redesignation of employment lands to other land uses. 3.0 LOCATION The lands affected by this amendment are the existing employment areas within the Town of Aurora as identified on Schedule "A" attached hereto. 4.0 BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT Council has enacted this amendment in response to the following: 4.1 As part of the Five Year Review of the Official Plan Council identified a numberof initiatives that were to be undertaken following the review. The development of a strategy to retain employment land was established as a priority 4.2 In December of 2003, Council authorized staff to retain Hemson Consulting Ltd. to undertake an Employment Land Retention Strategy. 4.3 A review team comprising of Planning Department Staff, the Economic Development Officer and the Town's external legal counsel have provided guidance to the consultant. 4.3 The completed employment strategy provides policies to be included within an official plan amendment in order to implement the recommendations of the strategy. —23— COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 Town of Aurora — OPA # 55 2 PART 2 - THE AMENDMENT 1.0 INTRODUCTION All of this part of the document entitled Part 2 — The Amendment, consisting of the following text and attached map, designated Schedule "O" (Employment Areas), constitutes Amendment No. 55 to the Official Plan for the Town of Aurora. 2.0 DETAILS OF THE AMENDMENT The Official Plan of the Town of Aurora is hereby amended as follows: Item (1) By adding the following new Schedule "O" to the Official Plan, as included within this Amendment: Schedule "O" - Employment Areas Item (2) Section 3.3.1 is hereby amended by the addition of a new Section 3.3.1 — Employment Land Retention as follows: 3.3.1.1 Employment Land Retention INTRODUCTION Employment land has traditionally been referred to as land in industrial areas, but currently accommodates a much wider range of uses. Employment areas today accommodate traditional activities such as manufacturing, distribution and warehousing as well as many other types of uses such as research and development, offices, service commercial, recreational facilities, institutional and accessory retail uses. In the Town of Aurora, employment land accommodates a full range of uses from traditional activities such as manufacturing and distribution, to support services such as commercial printing, to small commercial businesses serving local needs such as garden supplies and bakery products. Employment land is a critical component of the variety of land uses that create a vibrant and healthy community. From a community perspective, no one land use is more important than any other. Instead, what matters is balance. Within this context, it is important to maintain a balance —24— COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 Town of Aurora — OPA # 55 3 between population and employment. To create a balanced community, in which opportunities are provided within the community for residents to work, employment growth is required. Employment growth is beneficial to a community for a number of reasons: Promoting a better live -work relationship helps reduce traffic congestion when fewer residents must leave the community to find employment opportunities. 2. A greater diversity in the property assessment base allows the community greater flexibility in responding to unanticipated changes in the community or the market. 3. In most cases, non-residential development still generates a greater long term net fiscal benefit to the municipal corporation. In June of 2002 the Town of Aurora commenced a Five Year Official Plan Review process. The Town of Aurora Five Year Official Plan Review process identified a concern pertaining to conversion of employment lands to other land uses. The Final Strategic Directions report dated April 2003, completed as part of the official plan review, concluded that guidelines be added to the Official Plan pertaining to redesignation of employment lands to other uses. This recommendation was approved by Council on May 27, 2003 The Town recognizes the importance of protecting the employment land supply. The Town also recognizes that pressure for the redesignation of employment land to other urban uses will continue. The vacant land supply is becoming constrained for all types of urban uses. Because of this situation, strong policies regarding the retention of the employment land supply are required. The Town has undertaken an employment land retention strategy to address this need. 3.3.1.2 POLICIES a Within employment areas as identified on Schedule "O", Council shall not approve applications for the redesignation of employment land to other urban uses that involve or are based upon disagreement with, or challenges to, the overall amount of employment land designated in the Town, including arguments of scale, outside of a comprehensive growth management process, or five year official plan review process. —25— COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 Town of Aurora — OPA # 55 4 Otherwise, employment land shall only be. redesignated to other urban uses if both of the following two conditions are met: The proponent shall have the onus of demonstrating that the site cannot be developed for any employment land use due to a valid physical planning reason: site configuration; access; or surrounding land uses: and The proponent shall have the onus of demonstrating that the proposed alternative is compatible with all land uses permitted on surrounding and nearby lands, will not cause any negative effects on the existing or prospective employ- ment land uses, including potential destabilizing effects, and will also be beneficial to the Town in the areas of: • Contribution to the overall intent, and goals of the Town's policies; • Demands on servicing and infrastructure; ■ Fiscal impacts; and ■ Alternative locations within the Town to accommodate the proposed use. c If either condition is not met, the application shall not be approved. Any reports submitted in support either of these above two conditions must be subjected to a full peer review process, at the expense of the applicant. 3.0 IMPLEMENTATION AND INTERPRETATION 3.1 The implementation and interpretation of this Amendment shall be in accordance with the respective policies of the Aurora Official Plan and in accordance with the provisions of the Employment Land Retention Strategy prepared by Hemson Consulting Limited dated May 2004. —26— COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 EXPLANATORY NOTE Re: Official Plan Amendment No. 55 Official Plan Amendment No. 55 has the following purpose and effect: To provide policies to be considered within employment land areas pertaining to the retention of employment lands and conversion or redesignation of lands within employment area to other land uses. The policies and principals pertaining to the retention of employment areas have been derived from the "Employment Land Retention Strategy" completed by Henson Consulting Limited dated May 2004. The "Employment Land Retention Strategy" will be consulted in assisting in the interpretation of the specific policies set out within this amendment. —27— ` WN OFAU `v" THIS IS SCHEDULE "O" THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK TO BY-LAW NO.4550-04.D PASSED THIS DAY Official Plan OF ,2005. Amendment No. 55 B. PANIZZA, TOWN CLERK T. JONES, MAYOR ® EMPLOYMENT AREAS St -inhn's • - ... I / '-,AURORA 1 I 404 EAST I � 1 1 • ' - /404 • // - • •'Street East: i I� • i I F J II. COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 AGENDA ITEM I 'TOWN OF AURORA COUNCIL REPORT No. TR05-010 SUBJECT: 2005 Fees and Service Charges FROM: Jim Carey, Director of Finance / Treasurer DATE: February 8, 2005 RECOMMENDATIONS THAT the 2005 Fees and Service Charges for licences and services itemized on the attached schedules be approved THAT By-laws: Business Licencing fees - 4629-05.P General Administration fees-4635-05.F Leisure Services Fees - 4639-05.F Planning Fees under the Planning Act - 4636-05.F Building Fees under the Building Code - 4630-05.F be enacted at the February 8, 2005 Council meeting. BACKGROUND Council last reviewed and revised the Town of Aurora Fees and Services Charges on January 13, 2004. It has been the Town's practice to review the attached schedules annually and to make revisions as required. Approved Fee and Services increases will be reflected in the first draft of the 2005 Operating Budget. Staff considers CPI (Consumer Price Index) increases; rates charged by neighbouring municipalities and cost increases/decreases when recommending changes to fees and services. A summary of the Department fees and services proposals follows. COMMENTS Some of the fees and services noted in the attached schedules are covered under other by-laws that pertain to other Acts, such as the Building Permit Act and the Planning Act. Administration Cost of photocopies was changed to $.50 per page and fax transmittals at $6 for first page and $2 per additional page to ensure corporate consistency. —29— COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 February 8, 2005 - 2 - Report No. TR05-010 Corporate Services Most charges are unchanged. Certified copies charge is proposed at $5 per page, up from $2.50. Marriage license fees are up to $125 from $100. Treasury No changes. Building Department The building department is proposing a 10% increase in building permit fees. This is reflective of increases in administrative costs over the last three years. As the last increase in permit fees was realized in 2002 this represents less than an annual 3% increase. Staff will be revisiting the fee structure for building, plumbing and septic permits as well as other departmental services with further recommendations being presented to council in late June or early July. This additional review is the result of pending legislation proposed to come into effect in July 2005. As indicated in December 2004 staff will be engaging the services of a consultant to assist with this review. Public Works To better reflect actual costs the following three main changes have occurred: • Increased field service costs related to water turn on/off; • Revised definitions of service to capture differences between in-house and outside mapping reproduction costs; and • A general rounding of fees Planning Fees and services have increased by 3% overall to reflect cost in living indices. A review of Planning and Building Fees will be conducted priorto the July 1, 2005 start of the changes to Bill 124 (BRRAG). Leisure Services The Leisure Department Report LS05-009 addresses the amendments to the fees and services under By-law#4535-04.F. The attached schedule has been updated to reflect these changes. —30— COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 February 8, 2005 - 3 - OPTIONS • Increase or decrease proposed fees and service charges CONCLUSIONS The increases proposed primarily reflect inflationary indexing for the Planning Fees. corporate wide is minimal. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Report No. TR05-010 actual cost recovery increases and a 3% The overall change in administrative fees The present affect of the proposed 2005 fees and service charges on corporate revenues is minimal, as most of the changes merely offset cost increases. The fees and service charges unchanged for 2005 remain competitive with surrounding municipalities. LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN Goal "A" — To Maintain a Well Managed and Fiscally Responsible Municipality. The objective stated is to: "Formally adopt a user pay philosophy and examine processes where consumers of a service pay an equitable proportion of the cost of operating it." ATTACHMENTS ➢ 2005 Fees and Service Charges Schedules ➢ Appendix A — Public Notice Proposed Amendment to the Fees and Charges By-laws PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW Senior Management Team — Wednesday, February 2, 2005 Prepared by: Jim Carey, Director of Finance/Treasurer (Ext. #4111) —31— COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 ATTACHMENT-1 N LL r0+ N C OI 16 � L t u U N O a oZ w a` 0 o 0 w m .y O !D 000 O �U 00 O O N ~ �000041 f0 (V O LL N ti o in 1� W � c 0 a 0 u a e» Ea c» e» » csr � yr ur m 6 d c LE E E a v �_ ai Oo .°c m ao m � a 0000000 0 0 � rn 0000Lnmo 0 0 V F- Mm�n � o N c U U V en � v� csr Fa Ftr of �r ss m m m m m m m m m c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J O N N N N N N N N U ro .y O• N N R � W ❑ m Z Q J W 4 u nQ W w U 0 J NuJ � LL U Q o � Z>NO� m LL cl) U) o C T N g J O W Z Q °• .. W U i QQ o EHKOLL W 0 Ny (�UmU(7 o LLJ ZOKxx W=W 3 a y ❑ o ul .i ❑ ❑: UaULL Q o= -32- COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 z w. Q. a w 0' ATTACHMENT-2 m U. m rn � ,os a v o o N a O 0 N .N Itl m wLucm C 0 aLL �w O v t7 O o E mo E C C O C = m U a N 466G. V m o m m D a `° O y m m m R m a m m y a Em c im �`. fl, U "0 m o 0 0 0 0 w C .... O N (O (VL6 N O ,.. M F- C ,. O m rn m rn rn m m a > J O o N o N rn O• m m v W R K O a F � 2 O C m - O N N C d O a LL Q m L E 0 z0 U J 0 @ 2'N °'2 0 Z m N Q E Y O= m ._ E C r W w m ° E O u o °� ° 0.. dco O°7�;- W ° C_ G w Z O W N O C C au. m O a owK m O (n m N ~x� O'� o m o K w m 3 o s o w DU a U tai 0L iof o. m Q 1-- 3 0 -33- COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 v v LL w N � N L � t U .o O N V aZ oN a0 o` 0 N .y A m co 0- u- I- N ciJ c..: dr m° m° Cu 00 N N N T O. d - - - �' - - a m m m m U m m m m U m m rn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u O O .iy U m m c o 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 V Y- N N o S W y W jp u u_ y Z o 0 m v t U O m 0 O J C N r N 7 C O @ m oPS 6 w Q C N O m C m °6 IR O C N O J m "�D in @ 'Oo � m N E ma o 0 m0 cd a°'i o Q cn a E E E m E c a 0 o �� o w o � o c E c ° J a (0 U 1p U N U N w UE U N .0 0 z — m a — a E d (U/1 C N y G y t O ou L)Na C) cD a ¢ ci M¢ m 0 7 a' —34— COUNCIL - FEBRUARY a, Zoos U /0 49 :� ± ) T nc: �` FoE - !«:#\) E -_ `y( )A , §j0 §(3/ � fc ® +0 {;t Efa .9 q �� § \ _ s\ E / {fi : ° [ ƒf) \ , ) �' { ] �iE }/{ § \ o / \ \cc �\ § { (\\ ( $ \ ) - a e ,)§ {) \)§ § ( $ E \j\ ) ) j�) / \ \ 0 \ 2 , ;(; Qaa < : -35- COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 d U. w d t N u V 0u a2 o d a`N `o 0 W. m .N m m o < w, c ui CL r' , m >0E � o E g ti o 0 0 o o wa. •o d m o 0 m 0.0 0 O 1 � m e 0 m i' c m m 0 01 O 75 m O C D) O C 01 O` C 2a0 Tao �a`O �'a0 � 0 o 9 1- .Qaa - -, O y L C C9 0 "O 0 'O 0 'O U V o N M 0 c N M d as N M 0 � W m m m O N N C >_ -1 O O rn O N u'a O• N N W m K u F p N O N w N O N N O N < o- O Z E 4 m W N W W O 0 O C7 O Y N � n- - coU m cD a 0 Z to C7 Z W O (7 LL > o z > a z an 0.w w co m U) a (0 m`a W O �- waEi �� O U u D Z m � CD W W 2 o U.2: —36— COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 d LL w of � N C N u •� .O U U 0 aZ o cn IL 0 `o 0 w N .y a1 m ❑.j �'t OI a- N � c � � d o m E oa-o°d ai rn m � a 0 0 LL L 00 O N W W Lj W co ° .'U v O O O Z Z Z va » 61 T m m m d q C >_ J O rn rn rn rn rn o w • U GLu N m m It a LL M 0)p m J d o O � U w o u U) W O Q U fn w FN- Z rn ~ rn a K Y K W0 gg !Y m c� 00 c a a wa Lu > �a o LLJ 55 U.0z❑ a� ° C34 Hw w��m rma �oya v F 9 odU F Qa nw a" u a —37— COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 ATTACHMENT.3 `o iu LL C OI N N O o U01 U a'Z 0 0 0 Q y n o a n a •° m m m m m U U U U Z m Z Z Z d w O, p c w yr /J 0 c C7 O c a o E m E a10i 0 L U N N U a 0 O = 0 0 0 0 N O) M N M LL C N F' r 0 O ❑ N O ❑ •� O O O O u m Lu J W C 0 W m 0 W O O w y 0 G LL .N N C O ~ 01 C l6 0 T V U) C 0 Oi N D U N NS W O` [n U O' O` -O G t09 llyl O m N N j O W 0 w .0 ❑ O C O O W o a W¢ N O N K c M Z 0 O 0 ¢ O ?. 0 (/''7 U O N 6 W G �, 0-2 o N d' > N 'U ¢ 0 U 0 r N W lL N N N O« ? U N LL d O. y O. Q O' ❑ LL r m V7 O W C (n o m ._ 2' F- a LL Z D o ❑ 0 a E W > E E > U - I" COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 _r `o v U. r0+ � N N N N FL OBI CI Oi ON N N @ R t O O N N N N N L L L oa 0 0 `y IL $ � m 3 3 3 m Z Z o 0 U 0 U � O O OI O fO (V � N O N i C C9 H} H3 fPr U V w 6 9 N tap U U N '90 a a.. a •- � 0 0 Ol tri N C � F u vi C C � � O C N Q N N >K .0 N O N rn N w J W O C �a. m as Z❑'R E U) rn m Z Lu w U K d m m � c a tq o u �IW- 0g o a O .ay m❑ Y C ❑ G C Q U QK�� Wed U v y F a¢ L 0 z a U = O LL N F U ii �� W o N as d LL -39- COUNCIL — FEBRUARY e, 2005 ATTACHMENT - 4A \f VU o :E \� \� & ]§ . 0 IL \\\ol ! 7f§ §§® ]E! « ) ( i (+ ` )2-Cc ) \ B{§/ ) ;E\ � /f7 k_ f E Z / it k 0\E }(� —40— COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 0 d �s aU y U_ aZ O N a`0 .- o m A u. tl! 10 m N N. Q C U) �r N (L c U O K a ti m o m °'mac � L N a E o m ° 7 m a c c � o 0 � a N U v3 er m m 3 w c rn c d '> 0 c c o s a d w �Qm� who N LL y� O1 O Na s N m E Co 0 N G N O N u '�• o 0 M? U N V N Cep to p N o > o m 4 6 d N E m oc N t`0 Q 0 U O C N .G o m 'C ❑ Q Q� i (0 d. C N U N —41— COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 ATTACHMENT- 4B u LL w d d C O N q t L d U a N ad aN `o N .N d m ry N ~ LL N O U' W w O, c a'O ' O a ,c_ b ^ y d N d uo ov'@ owoz 3 N d d O Ol C O Of C� � O✓ C o a E c E E c E E a 'Z o- 00 m o 0 0 d LL rn r V H N ' N U" q o d C > J O Q N O N N � G N d N W m LL' 0 y d N O y ry � N a U d d f/1 LL L e LL N {'j d O d m' d N d d 6 d d r0- N iT E a L O) N C n u o y gut d q d or d 0 y y 3 d a rn c a o - O1a O w i p G C E ydj O d E y— O N N F y N V � N O, U C .0 N �j C .0 rn E rn= u c d v � Q ai a ° o Q o aoi b D V � d V1p Z E D �p .�� � m d 0] � n -42- COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 0 a a LL Y a a C D! R � t L u U N U n2 o w a` `o An a a m N r i 41 c W m m 0 ° 9 a. U a N Ny C o w'c E VE c 3 a o a E o" a c `off o �a>i `o E F- m ^Coo 0, 0wr`v m.E ;E o OC ma ° NEa P o >a� E ou^i F 0 N f n0M o d n C3a N 'EQ2 . N v N p b? E E f9 ❑ E O er o 'o o Y N N Y. W v E d' n o En a o `a m > u > — u o m a$ E a w�� any. c EaoOLL ns2n`ow 0 �n 0 uo 0 0 o 0 a 0 o 0 0 0 00 00 0 00 0 o 0 a 0 0 0 9 f- d �N 7 � � U w w w w w w w »wen Err » w w N > J O a � a a O O y N m a a o o a a y{ 0 0 c .. °° . E c c r c � C O N 10z a O N'c ° a U N m c O ° wU c rn a m > > w ve m m m �uoi y sn E mrn cHv m c o 3F- � � `0 o m m� 5 U? 3 mm u mo a c m y oam d° E 5O rn E c y ar o a OU U "mQ "a`o a LLWSN 0 LL qqo Q C L _ — N -43- COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 a a LL w a a c rn a a r t v U N V_ n Z O a 1 N O N •N a m N ~ LL fN ❑ (7 W O, c O a 'o ' o � u a O a 6 n u y o a L 6 N O 'EJ a ] 9 L N a N O= L ] y y c� �t nm n n va o o uo 0 LL O '..• N O N v H r ' fJl t5 c U U NNN > J O .0 ,N O• � a y W m K a F' 3 m ry C N 7. a P u1 3 t y 3 E t= d u o c LL V U y N w a O) O 3 y 3 '=cyr E5 E (p � d a Z a LL Y U a 9 O a C N a a va a O o y a , 3t•'-tea ma`6 dt° m m` O N N OI a_ NL] Ca'O R •aa U o a >a!� ❑ U � •N N u zi .O N y F• O. f9 F a O d '� c ` LL V% y c K y F K a n V —44— COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 a a a LL r a a c m a `m U G U a o av o m a` `o An ,y a 6l N ~ LL V1 W rn c O u 4 `. a o a m o t o 0 0 � o n u y d u n E 'm m _ N n .v. u _ _ D m da n vvjo •Ej O N C p a d_ O a O Q n p 2 O 6 _ p-> a O! _ n1 0 E o a v t o '> o f c a ' v U F» Fn oa w F» a m c � o N O W n C O C a t O n w` O a N C a LL t a w o° N m s y m N `o c a to)N N o a� m of c m c � N a c o U o a m c a w a LL d W m a N H U ua. O m _ a —45— COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 0 a a LL Y d d C OI d A L t N V_ 6 O d R M 0 d N N m a ~ LL N O f7 W rn � O a 'v O � u dZ d a t Ed ti dJo�'x of d"- ... u 3'v mo o'E o x o f C JO N a ° 9 v° u a u d E m ti n a w 3$ _0 o ny oa 10 a m a a._ o J o M o a r N o n L Q o L a 0 p V ti J N y O a U u {p j O U U j O m � a 2, a N j O t O O N o h le 492 N M - 5 0 d O O O O O O O M O O O M LL 9 H N voi vOi N y � N g v iJ V a � o > J O U Q A w a m W jp CC « 1° v a C d u 9 y 2 o d ry V j N U N N O d > Ili °' 0 E m 00 o 2 y v d o o m m o o u o� Uai o LL J « J « '^ op `o ° a N 'C o O O N a O O N a > 4 y._. E a E N O ¢ Q U m n a m ¢J E w K d d m a w v° a° a d LL 3 `o LL LL? a t ❑ c� a LL d N Col N -46- COUNCIL — FEBRUARY §, 2005 )\ /k \ / �$ ®:r �)\)§ k = * # § f ` ]cl) : \ } \ \\ \)\ , - - of -__- -47— COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 o r v LL d d c m d � L t U a y u a2 d d a` m w N 'N N m LL. N 0 U W m o � d a ° y ^ ati c m d y D d G N ° `o m ° Y U U d � O O C N N N •G o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o00 0 00 �[i o00o N� � n n 9 f- yCj J N C U' U > .0 J O ,d O• � d d W m C O E m d u D c v! E d m o d a �• LL C C D d �- d d O d y N« a d o 0 d 'C tll �- 'O U ✓� .O. C d V N O N d C N d E 9 .` d '� E:o tOEEEE EE d EEEEE E,m E o 0 0 ❑ U ..:aU'O E O —N.-�N O 1° O N NM O> - > a � a M l COUNCIL - FEBRUARY B, 2005 ATTACHMENT e \ # } / \ a 0 0 0m �k \\ \\ \m0 7 ca \\ )) {\\)\\ 2 � - 0 f ) \ k k ° - { ( \\�!; \� \ \ ) ) k�\ \} 20 ) LL im §]A p = ^ \\ \ \ )! \ ) ( § } \ )CD §! ww § \ E (L ) _}\{\ & E )$\/2 _ ) \ k 46 § ) ~ ; c #\m29«f E : _\ �� \ //}\}\) § \) \ 7 _ « / ) no ) ) !« # f—L02 ) a a -49- COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 0 N N N R O N 'fl N N �Vi N VI m O1 m 9 u u u u m m o d w y U O T T T 2, G u d d m m p N u u u m m A m d d 0 d 0 d 0 m u_ m an d m E N E y E N 0 y F °u 1°- uF�- u1O- u o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NCO O O C C LL fN ❑ C9 W a Oo a o 0 c o 0 to vi ur ss E» w w w 0 y � o M a« m m + a LL wO C oo = v LL a$ U 0 m 46 E 0c N fiOq �� O E N G 7 G19 O C C �-E NF- Qd p O - .., O:2CoW U cao. ¢'o+c7+K + o 3 O O O O C C C Q O L C N N N N N n n V7 u 0 e e » c o= o 0 o m ro o 0 0 0 0 W O N N N m N N N N N 6 y VI W O U y ` C > > O O U do m m c c d a 3 3 3 3 ro. io y m E y m N u ❑ 0 ? tm a Z 0, u= O 2 '- a O Z O rn1- c Z O O c R u € m O O O O O V yO, j O_1 O N N E E E E N d U O O O N O 4z N N d O O w m 0 m ❑ N w 3 ❑ a' 3: -50- COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 M d 0 t 0 .O U 0 0 Q2 O a` N ° 0 o N N m m 00 0 00 00 0 0 0 a0i ~ at r r C o u. ai E a W 0 7 O a a c m w m o ai 0 a 0 0 0 c L o E � ° C 0 m a l L o^ o o Or O h O ^ N N M ° + � c f9 o E .,- mmmm roam a 0a °=mmmm mom o mo 0 0 N N N � VI R' V y L J W N O ° 0 m IL ' 'O � y O N Z g m �w z V7 y co of O p (� 0,55 o L Y N 0 G 0 G o U m 0 o m m o y am v.-U vUU ro o� 0 N ZO N m 0 co m o 10 � 16 m m c6 ON ��_ mcn � mm -51- COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 ATTACHMENT-bA 4i m E a m a! of `o dN f0 10 LL C C C N N w m FmF W m m O m m m (D a) m m m 0 U mmmmmmmm@mm c c c c c c c c c c mm c GINN N m L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L V U U U U U U U U U U U U U 0 0 0 0 o O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 L L L d zzzzzzzzzzz zz a y a c c c m m m w T N N N 0 0 C N C 0 OU 0 ry ca ooaa 0 0 0 3 Vi 0 O v� c a u3 v3 6v ai o m L m m E ma- a) o a o m a m a o 0 0 0 o m m 9 ❑ aiv O�OmUUUUU m y 0 °' a aao_daaan.aa ` o0000000000 00 coo `v o0000000o coo 0o Noo ro N O N N 7 0 O N O N o o O N N y M N U G ea cs e» ea EA e> sir csr es Fss Fs, » Fsr v� v� e3 at c L c U N m o c c q v m E IL d O 0 0 Q C O > N U oo ao LL m uO > m m E E r m a J c c o m C c C N U C O N y E o 0 0 m L m�� O E ON L O O N O� 0 y o c m m m c E mz a m O E a) E o a m a m W E m of z .0 od1°0 V O c=mE N d 0 V E C Y 'O N O X U) Olq ON 0 Q>U C7 o Qfn 0- -52— COUNCIL - FEBRUARY a, Zoos /\ co 0 \5 fn0(D -- - 242kt$ ,E- _76 Z, _ :§�E_E - ®�f§ ;0C)c) 5] ! LT cq \ \� ]=j . 4) S - \{{) / ` § ) Q enB ))7 �° ® -_-g <`a _ k/ \ ) }: \k \()k en / \ ) ;)( b) e §/)\ )\) W j \\f \ 2t«« ° \§° »! (\ §«i/ -95 @®( ) EE ) k) [() )2 ))f) ) \\\\ )j\ -53- COUNCIL - FEBRUARY e, 2005 a «mom -40 E ){)) C) 0 - a;f( }{[7 \\j\ E\ \\ \}�\ - 5§{� ) - / _ )Ii\ - .2 \}\\\ ) )/ f{�2: ( / !E « ; - .2 { § )§ \))\) ! /> f ] ) )« )()w §f )ƒ{®® i » £ ,s \/\n«« z§ a!/§§� -54- COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 v d =m R xxxxx N N O N N x N xxxxxx U) UJ UJ N N N xxKx Ol N N N xx N N ry V V C C C C C C C C c C G C U C C C C C C N lQ N t0 R tQ t6 f0 N lV (0 t0 C m N N m w tm p C L c c c C c C c c c c c C c c c c c c 0 m o 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 p`,N mmmmm m mmmmmm= Rmmm mm C C C C C .m C c C C C C C C C C c C'c N LL o 0 o a o 0 o a o 0 0 o c o o a a e o M M M Ma M M M M M M fL M 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O o o O O O O O O ❑."` as o0000 0 000000 0 oa oo 00 W co Q.:N V NcqNmM 7 Ncl NmM W c\ NM d:W N .- N NI d'yr:. ❑ F et et u� e»' car v3 ss e» e» csr va » Es F» vs ua s> vt e> m m m y c c c a� oo oU oU 0.0_U 0 00 0 0 .UG L L d'JU E m m UU UU UU U V = ,a �dvO000QU¢ QQ=Q¢U¢ Q¢Q¢ QQ - - - - - `m -- `m aadn.d a aaaaaaa adad d a 00000 0 0000000 0000 0o o0000 0 00'00000 0000 00 '. h mowuo ui Lio 46L'i6 6666 66 M W O N t f0 M m m O N r W N( O� ( m q N c N m M M N O N m M c`? WON M M t 1 U S c v � vi of `» e» ea Est es ea et Ftr e"r sv to csr en » en ss rn t LL � O U G > G> c C > 0 c N LL C N N G N N LL U m . O N m m c m m 0 w CAN a = m D_N FL ;C 'EO E.- Na C N N O d w U C = 0� U C = 'O N— U C > 0zO n d LLZ as E moz.n d E U N N = N 'v� N N N �- O 16 0 LLLL N 0- ?ALL 0 LL v- 0 ¢LLLLLL c O 0-d d IL U C= d C IL = c m C O C 6 d m m c V 'O y d m t6 c 0] '-y w N c 'm N U tOJ U1 O C C U c0' U (cJ C cc U N U m `�2oom o d Q? oom'v0 0 0° om a o OM Z20 Q to aOi w a aZ �' U¢ N Nd ZU Q Q et m —55— COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 a a Am xx x x x xx x xxxxx a m m m m m m a a m m a a a'Cy c C C C C C C C C C C C C .� mm m m m mm m m m m m m 00 C C C C C C C C C C C C C 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0.0.0.0.0 a` In m m m m m m m m m m m m m a LL a o 0 0 0 o e o 0 0 0 0 0 MrO MMM fD y 0 0 O O O O O O O o o o 0 d=' ov o0 0 0 0 00 0 0 O N � O a c N CL G � N C L �EOoffm LwII0`o- CN '=�o E =�oCm o d o im0 av o t p E wyTcac0<i a E m y O E a IL a- adna oo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 o0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 m F o iri mo ri 6 6 ri o o �[i o vi wo m m ,n w in o rnmarn lL Ur' N N C C' 'p U< u c ._. ei e3 va ra es ra r» » r» En rFi v3 e> m m ^ c m c w a a > •w .. N O O m LL m N .� N a r+ LL C L C O C L > > O C OC y C N d w U m O> M C a w Q V O m `I w m m C D O C a N N N N. a D p m a w O w C C Y Z N wQ� a M 'm _O O O rn n N j a N N o •'a0_ Q C O 2 L IL m N o d N y O` CO w N O. O LL E o .o CO Q. 90o ycmiZZ a mm 'Z = c o n m E mom o w -din wii2 y o,w 4' Qo0o w a- Q w in y E m d 0 C Q a C G O O •C o +. O C O G LL m j c f/i C C 0 jp C O C -O U Z .) Z �/1 C N C E- a o 'ow m �n �'� >ya n a a S a s a w n >> E ��wae o o wil in z° a n —56— COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 a a m m � aXi axi axi axi aKi axi aKi axi axi y a m u m m m m m m mR m m o N 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y m m m m m m m m m m G7 a+ M M (O t0 O aYLL v c ai m u b a m m m 0] 07 a10i 0 `o `o `o o c o c o c c o _ 7 7) '> > ¢ ¢ a ¢ V a a a a a a a d aaa a of 0 oof rnvv o y N M W O) y� m t. D J � o ° m LL u> q_ O LL C C v Z ,.� E v m o n° c E c ? o E m a c c O u Z Y o o. d c Q Rax CL aZi Y ° oU Q `o a ¢ E, 0 00 U m p a aai a N LL G LL ` a C Q N— N a U C 1 0 FL o 9 m a _ m o.J m a c > ° E O E -O 0 U o J4-- and J— .� _ ° Z o a m o o E o LT Lu C Q ¢ N a ¢ 0� °oU E� o a¢ w E mE 0 p F» 'c o o p o 0 a o o J ELL J a R E J Q c y J O y y C c a c 0 5 'a J 'c U 'w C C E— O m c o ❑ rn o, o o °°c �U E E'y c c c ca m,mN ¢ a -°° o. a� aa�i oYata ,E� u c c ° > > c > > Jyo a' CC UW CL ar W a 0 U ILU I r -57- m COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 a a m N N N N N N N N N N L � U a H, c c c c c c c a Z c c c 0 a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 li a o 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 M M M Mimi M M M m M n7 o,v o 0000 o a> boo Ul co ? D M M o OpM .. O: c tO�p M LL c O c a..-, ` N �• � v, ui ea va ea v, » v> ss e� 3 nw E� o E C C C C E N a G O 0 E 7 W V Q¢ Q Q 0 p 0 N M Q Q — v dID- da a N as ill o oo O O O O O O r N 0 0 N LL� N p 'O U: u c 0 0 a c rn � `m C v a N � E U_ E p f m o `0 0 LL Q N N E c°- E a E u o °- o m a t0 a s .N LL ILa s @ ll a N C 'C LL O y —wo ll IL w C O C O M ._ N O c Q N h p N O O .`• aa a o 0� a o a Qa. ofQ ¢LL C¢ v o Gf I" COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 d v � a axi aKim m =R o f U c c c c v - uRi u a N 0 R 0 R m O O y N m m m m Y1 N o o a o m G m M M M m 0 ❑-. ,- a v o 0 0 N:..;. ? V � m M O Q' O u, c ti � u N 6 � R O T C c 0 C 0 C 0 C O t E U U U p (J QQQ Q c d a. a. a. a 0 F o 0 0 y N vu�iN o LL U, m m c rn o c 'v � o U u t rn ro � U O � Z N `o a c 5 m U) ,i 0 u K v o m o o LL N , E m 'EO lL c 2 - X lL N c� m W e o E o c o C Q 6 N Q R o `O � a E - c u m Ev N Q d Q a Q 0 U O M O 0 —59— COUNCIL — FEBRUARY B, 2005 700 2/ )k� \ )\) \ : E .{ k = ƒ \�X 0 0_ - /\ \ ) \ \2 \ �_ \f ® f \\ \\0 � c B ff ) : \ #® B E 16 ; - §}\ y -� {ƒ§ \o _ r& }\ ( _- : ) 0 ® \)) \ ) S /§ ) )g] \ )/ ®: § m !§a { § )\ & E { , $§2 ( \ / )) )) § \ \ {#\® _ 5 )N }2\� �� \E _ \� ; m ! -0 , § _ ! ]} {/)N $ _—{ ) &: &,,, j\\ )) ){ cl-lem COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 IL w d �m m m 'O t d U u_ m aZ a`N `o w d IL N m a0 d d, o0 0 0 00 LL N 00 0 0 00 W, j f� r N W (V (V W d U p' o c d H v U a�: va er ev as ea sv ai N O' N H O C U C C L E m E E o c Q m m m d 'O (n W W as a m m o0 0 00 LL `a F- rn rn � row t y N c f7 U c w o 0 d a 0 V d 3 m c o -o d U O � C L O O. O LL O m w U u N c �" f° c m o m >m `m E m O c aQQ m t o �°- D `o O Q U G C O O C fl. odmE E� tll c D N N d L p 6 N ' O Uinw Li Ko Q N > -61- COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 w d �m m � .c = °U y d d O aZ o. N a` `o w d N iy N d ni d U O O O 0 9 d Q 0 p C �- `OW U (L v> E» c. am 0 r c K K � p L d O d d U f0 d O m m D a v ¢ > > `d `m a a a 0 0 0 N N U U E1 U 3 o c O a o m � U d w O 3 L td1 w y.. °rn�m d �a)NU w0 y Y yN c aym y m c°i3 dm NEI a-c-M m o0 odo m m w m U G an O vd- N U N O1 C U '> U U c d d c Tdi o. 0 �'n m IL O 2 O U° U d O p G d O) L C d L tc 0.2 m d d G d o d p to d H a m O O E H an d `m E N L m `d ma m o>46 ° c> o m 0 ° o c in a`ai o m E o o f > _o 'a U O— �_ O w c d m 2 x E °U '� a d °U ,� m w n °� O N -62- COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005APPENDIX A PUBLIC NOTICE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE FEES AND CHARGES BY-LAWS Aurora Council intends to consider reports and enact various by-laws at the public meeting on February 8, 2005 pertaining to fees and charges, pursuant to the Building Code Act, S.O., 1992 Section 7, the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13., and the Ontario Municipal Act, 2001, as amended. ➢ By-law 4491-03.F, being a by-law to authorize a schedule of fees for services offered by the Leisure Services Department and to prescribe charges for administrative matters ➢ By-law 4629-05 being a by-law to amend By-law 4258-01 P being the Licensing By-law, to amend the Business licensing fees in the Town of Aurora ➢ By-law 4630-05.F being a by-law to amend By-law 3487-93, as amended, being the Building Code of the Town of Aurora to amend the Schedule of Fees and Services ➢ By-law 4635-05.F, being a by-law to establish a schedule of fees for applications, permits, the sale of Town publications, and to prescribe service charges for administrative matters ➢ By-law 4636-05.F, being a by-law to establish a tariff of fees for processing of applications made in respect of planning matters Residents are welcome to attend this meeting as either a guest or a delegate. For delegation status, you must submit your request either by e-mail or by letter to Mr. Bob Panizza, Town Clerk bpanizza6Eiltown.aurora.on.ca. A copy of the proposed by-law is available in the Corporate Services Department and on the Town of Aurora website at www.town.aurora.on.ca "What's New" Section. Published January 25, 2005 —63— COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 Ut6 TOWN OF AURORA COUNCIL REPORT SUBJECT: Fees and Service Charges AGENDA ITEM # FROM: Allan D. Downey, Director of Leisure Services DATE: February 8, 2005 RECOMMENDATIONS No. LS05-009 THAT Council approve the amendments to By-law #4535-04.F to the Department of Leisure Services Existing Fees and Service Charges. BACKGROUND As a result of changes in the Municipal Act in 2002, municipalities are required to have all fees and services charged to the public approved with an accompanying By-law. The original By-law was approved in December 2002, however with the upcoming Spring & Summer Program Session set to commence in April 2005, staff have recommended the inclusion of new program opportunities. Staff have also reflected an average of 5% in program and sports field fees as a result of the Leisure Services Advisory Committee recommendation and Council's decision at the Council Meeting No. 05-01 held on January 11, 2005. COMMENTS Listed below are the amendments to the fee schedule: Program/Membership Senior's Centre Membership Fee After -school Membership Fee Pre-school Activities Lessons - Learn to Swim Leadership Programs Day Camps Specialty Camps Birthday Party Packages Special Events Adult Ball Soccer Pitch Old Fee $15.00/yr $20.00/yr $57.25-$155.40 $4.20-$21.00/class $6.83-$16.80/class $68.25-$262.50 $42.00-$230.00 $12.60-$35.70/day $95.00-$140.00 $2.50-$10.00/person $15.00-$20.00/family $12.90/hour $6.15/hour New Fee $20.00/yr $25.00/yr $60.00-$163.00 $4.25-$21.00/class $7.20-$17.65/class $61.50-262.50 $10.30-$35.00/day $12.00-$36.00/day $95.00-$150.00 $3.00-$12.00/person $16.50-$25.00/family $13.55/hour $6.50/hour All other fees have remained the same. ..../2 -64- COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 February 8, 2005 - 2 - Report No. LS05-009 CONCLUSIONS That Council approve the By-law as presented. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS An increase in total program and sport field use revenue by an average of 5% will be experienced in 2005, estimated at $84,000. LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN Goal "A" speaks to maintaining a well managed and fiscally responsible municipality. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft By-law, Department of Leisure Services Fees and Service Charges (By-law to be provided prior to Council Meeting). PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW Management Team Meeting, Wednesday, February 2, 2005. Prepared by: Melodie McKay, Mgr, of Programs/CommunityDevelopment, Ext. 4765 ALLAN D. DOWNL Director of Leisure Services -65- COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 ATTACHMENT •1 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF AURORA Kr By-law Number 4639-05-F BEING A BY-LAW to establish a schedule of fees for applications, permits, the sale of Town publications, and to prescribe service charges for administrative matters for the Leisure Services Department. WHEREAS Section 391 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25 as amended, authorizes municipalities to impose fees and charges; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Aurora has enacted by-laws as part of its annual corporate review of fees and services charges; AND WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Aurora deems it necessary and expedient to establish a new schedule of fees for the Leisure Services Department Programs; AND WHEREAS the requirements of notice pursuant to Ontario Regulation 244/02 have been complied with; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF AURORA ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. THAT the Corporation of the Town of Aurora establish fees for certain municipal services for the Leisure Services Department; 2. THAT Schedule A attached hereto shall apply for Leisure Services Department for certain municipal services and shall form part of this By-law, 3. THAT payment for all fees, charges and applicable discountlinterest shall be accepted by cash, debit or cheque payable to the Town of Aurora, at the time the service is requested. 4. THAT, unless otherwise indicated in the attached Schedule, the provisions of this by- law shall come into force and effect on the day of passing. 5. THAT By-law 4535.04.F is hereby repealed. READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME THIS 8THDAY OF FEBRUARY 2005. READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 8T"DAY OF FEBRUARY 2005. T JONES, MAYOR B. PANIZZA, MUNICIPAL CLERK COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 BY-LAW 4639-05.F SCHEDULE A # ITEMS EXISTING FEE (Includes G.S.T.) PROPOSED FEE (Includes G.S.T.) 1. ADMINISTRATION (a) Membership Refunds (Except Medical Reasons) $36.00 $36.00 (b) Membership On Hold (Except Medical Reasons) $36.00 $36.00 (c) Program Refunds (Except Medical Reasons) $20.00 $20.00 (d) Child Supervisory Services - Sabysitting $4,00/per hour/per child $4.00/per hour/per child (e) Aurora Seniors Centre Membership Fee (55 rs+) $15.00/year- Resident $20.00/ ear -Non -Resident $20,00/year - Resident $25.00! ear -Non -Resident (f) Youth After -School Membership Fee (14-25 yrs) $57.25 - $156.40 $60.00 - $163.00 (g) Landscaping - Site Plans/Subdlvlslons Minimum$450.00 or 4.0% Minimum$450.00 or 4.0% 2. REGISTERED SEASONAL PROGRAMS (a) Pre -School Activities $4.2C/class - $21.00/class $4.25/class - $21.001class (b) Children's Activities $5.25/class - $22.84/class $5.25/class - $23.00/class (c) Youth Activities $3.94/class - $1575/class $3.94/class - $15.75/class (d) Adult Activities $7.88/class - $48.56/class $7.881class - $48.561class (a) Senior's Activities $2.63/class - $20.48/class $2.63/class - $20.48lclass (f) Family Activities $4.20/class-$7.88/class $4.20/class-$7.88/class (g) Fitness Programs $1.84/class - $26.25/class $1.84/class - $26.25lclass 3. REGISTERED AQUATICS PROGRAMS (a) Lessons - Learn to Swim $6.831class - $16.80/class $7.20/class - $17.65/class (b) Leadership Programs $68.25 - $262.50 $61.50 - $262.50 4. REGISTERED CAMP PROGRAMS - (a) Day Camps $44.00 - $241.50 $10.30/day - $35.00/day (b) Specialty Camps $12.60/day - $35.70/day $12.00/day - $36.00/day (c) Extended Care $25.00 - $105.50 $25.00 - $105.50 S. YOUTH DROP -IN ACTIVITIES Free -$3.00/visit Free - $3.00/visit P.A. DAY PROGRAMS $15.75/person - $42.00/person $15.75/person - $42.00/person WORKSHOPS/CLINICS/TOURNAMENTS Individual $2,00/person - $15,75/person $2.00/person - $15.75lperson r Team $20.001team - $26.00lteam $20.00/team - $26.0011eam BIRTHDAY PARTY PACKAGES $95.00-$140.00 $95.00-$150.00 SPECIAL EVENTSIndividual $2.50/person - $10.50/person $3.00/person-$12.00/person -67- COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 EXISTING FEE PROPOSED FEE # ITEMS (Includes G.S.T.) (Includes G.S.T.) (b) Family $15.75Kamily - $21.00/family $16,50/family-$25,00/family LEISURE COMPLEX MEMBERSHIPS 10 Note: All memberships apply to Aurora residents only, non-residents are subject to a 20 % surcharge). FITNESS STUDIO MEMBERSHIP 3 n 6 mo. 1 vr. 3 mo. 6 mo. 1 yr. $107.00/$180.00/$289.00 $107.00/$180.00/$289.00 (a) - Student/Senior - Adult $139.00/$232.00/$383.00 $139.00/$232.00/$383.00 - Spouse/Family $70.00/$117.001$192.00 $70.00/$117.00/$192.00 FULL MEMBERSHIP 3 mo 6 me. 1yr. 3 me. 6 me. 1 yr. $174.001$289.00/$466.00 $174.001$289.00/$466.00 (b) Student/Senior - Adult $230.00/$384.00/$626.00 $230.00/$384.00/$626.00 - Spouse/Famiy $116.00/$192.001$314.00 $116.00/$192.00/$314.00 LEISURE POOL MEMBERSHIP 3 mo 6 mo. 1 vr. 3 mo. 6 mo. 1 vr. Child/Youth $29.00/$45.00/$71.on $M2 .001$45.00/$71.00 e) - StudenlSenior $45.00/$66.001$110.00 $45.00/$66.001$110.00 - $62.001$94.00/$154.00 $62.00/$94.001$154.00 - Adult AQUAFIT MEMBERSHIP 3 ma 6 me. 1 yr. 3 mo 6 mo. 1 yr, $98.00/$137.00/$227.00 $98.00/$137.00/$227.00 (d) - Student/Senior - Adult $124.001$178.00/$296.00 $124.00/$178.00/$296.00 TRACK MEMBERSHIP 3 mo 6 mo 1 yr. 3 me. 6 mo. 1 yr. $50.00/$83.00/$143.00 $50.00/$83.00/$143.00 (a) - Student/Senior - Adult $60.00/$101.00/$167.00 $60.00/$101.00/$167.00 SQUASH MEMBERSHIP 3 mo 6 mo 1 vr. 3 mo 6 me. 1 yr. $42.00/$67.001$11 D.00 $42.001$67.001$110.00 - Youth (f) - Student/Senior $117.00/$194.00/$326.00 $117.00/$194.001$326.00 - Adult $154.001$257.001$409.00 $154.00/$257.00/$409.00 - Spouse/Family $77.00/$129.001$205.00 $77.00/$129.00/$205.00 CYCLEFIT MEMBERSHIP 3 mo 6 mo. 1 yr. 3 ma. 6 mo. 1 yr. $39.00/$64.001$107.0C $39.00/$64.00/$107.00 (g) - Adult ADD -ON OPTIONS 3 mo 6 mo. 1 yr. 3 mo 6 mo. 1 vr. $16.001$25.001$43.00 $16.001$25.00/$43.00 (h) - Pool Package - Aquaft Package $16.001$25.00/$43.00 $16.00/$25.001$43.00 - Cyclefit Package $39.00/$64.00/$107.00 $39.001$64.001$107.00 CORPORATE MEMBERSHIPS - Per Company 20%Discount 20%Discount (I) - Group of 5 -10 25% Discount 25% Discount - Group of 11+ 11. LEISURE COMPLEX DAILY USER FEES (a) Fitness Classes - Casual User Fee (incl, Aquafit) $6.50/class or $51.50/10 visits $6.50/class or $51.50110 visits (b) Track - Casual User Fee $2.50/use or $20,00/10 visits $2.501use or $20.00110 visits (c) Leisure Pool - Casual User Fee $2.50/use or $20.00/10 visits $2.50/use or $20.00110 visits (d) Squash - Daily User Fee (Prime) $8.001use or $52.00110 visits $8.00/use or $52.00/10 visits (a) Squash - Daily User Fee (Non Prime) $4.501use or $32.50110 visits $4.501use or $32,50/10 visits (f) Squash - Daily User Fee (Prime Summer) $5.75/use or $38.50/10 visits $5.751use or $38.50/10 visits Squash - Daily User Fee (Non Prime Summer) $3.00/use or $22.50/10 visits $3.00/use or $22.50110 visits Squash - Senior Rates 50% off listed fee 50% off listed fee or $25.00 - $3.00 - $55,0/class0110 $3.00 - $55.00/10 or $25.00 - Cyclefit - Casual User Fee $55.00/10 visits v $55.00/10 visits r12. SQUASHLessons or $12.50-$21.00/person or ' Members - court fees included, Non-members .50/person (3 or more) �Sl.50-$21.001person $10.50/person (3 or mare) - applicable court fees apply 2- COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 # I ITEMS (b) Clinics - (c) House League (d) Junior Squash Program (a) Equipment Rentals EXISTING FEE (Includes I PROPOSED FEE (Includes G.S.T.) G.S.T.) $10,50/week $10.50/week $25.00-Members/$25,00 plus $25.00-Members/$25.00 plus court fees - Non-members court fees - Non-members $10.50/week $10,50/week Racquets - $1.50 ($4.00 deposit) Racquets - $1.50 ($4.00 deposit) Eve Guards - $2.50 ($3.00 deposit) Eye Guards - $2.50 ($3.00 deposit) LEISURE COMPLEX SEASONAL 13. PACKAGES (a) Summer Splash Pass $75.00/family $75.00/family (b) Summer Squash Special $98.00 $98,00 $10.00/hour - 1 child $10.00/hour-1 child (c) Friends At Play (Christmas Program) $7.50/hour- 2 or more children $7.50/hour- 2 or more children $5.00/hour-3 or more children $5.00/hour-3 or more children PERSONAL TRAINING 14 PACKAGES (a) Introductory Session $50.00 $50.00 (b) Packages $118.00 - $764.00 $118.00 - $764.00 LEISURE COMPLEX RENTAL 15 RATES (a) Pool - Private Rental $65.00 plus lifeguard costs $65.00 plus lifeguard costs (b) Pool -School Instructional Lessons $4.75/person $4.75/person (c) Squash Courts $9,00/court/hour $9.00/courtlhour 16. PUBLIC SKATING PROGRAMS (a) Adult Shinny Hockey $5.00/person or $40.00110 visits $5.001person or $40.00/10 visits (b) Public Skating (all) $1.00/person/hour $1.00/person/hour (c) Seniors Skate $1.00/person/hour $1.001person/hour 17. ICE RENTALS COMMUNITY CENTRE/COMPLEX - (a) Ice Rental Prime $170.50/hour $170.50/hour - Adult (b) COMMUNITY CENTRE/COMPLEX - Ice Rental Prime $159.50/hour $159.50/hour - Minor Hockey/skating Club COMMUNITY CENTREICOMPLEX - (0) ICe Rental Non -Prime $104.50/hour $104.501hour - Weekday (8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.) Adult and Youth COMMUNITY CENTRE/COMPLEX - Ice Rental Non -Prime $110.00/hour $110.00/hour (d) - 6:00 a.m.-8:00 a.m. Weekday $110,00/hour $110,00/hour - 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. Summer Ice $110.00/hour $110.00/hour - Weekend Summer Ice 18, FACILITY RENTALS (a) COMMUNITY CENTRE -Auditorium- $342,00 $342.00 Social (b) COMMUNITY CENTRE - Auditorium - $80.00/3 hours $80.00/3 hours Meetings e) COMMUNITY CENTRE - Auditorium - $16.00/hour $16.00/hour Programs -3- COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 EXISTING FEE PROPOSED FEE # ITEMS (Includes G.S.T.) (Includes G.S.T.) (d) COMMUNITY CENTRE- Main Floor Rental - Youth $36.00/hour $36.00/hour (e) COMMUNITY CENTRE- Main Floor Rental - Adult $47.00/hour $47.001hour {I) COMMUNITY CENTRE - Main Floor Event $918.00/day/surface $918.00/day/surface - Private or Non -Aurora (g) COMMUNITY CENTRE - Main Floor Event $653.00lday/surface $653.00/day/surface - Nan-Profll In Aurora LEISURE COMPLEX - ActlVity/Craft/Meeting $21.5D/per hour $21.50/per hour (h) Roams or $53,5013 hours or $53.5013 hours - Bab sittin Room NIA $15.00 per hour 56 VICTORIA STREET $8,073.00/year $8,073.001year (1) - Big Brothers $800.00/year $800.00/year - Aurora .140 Squadron (J') VICTORIA HALL $26.00/hour $26.001hour (k) AURORA SENIORS CENTRE $31.00/hour $31.00/hour - Meetings (I) TENNIS COURTS $6.15/hour $6.50/hour BAND SHELL $27.00Iper use $28.35/per use (m) - Casual $225.00 $225.00 - Park EventlLarge Company/School Picnic (n) BEACH VOLLEYBALL COURTS $6.15/hour $6.50lhour TOWN HALL -Aurora Based Profit Groups $26.00/hour $26.001hour (a) - Leksand Room $32.00/hour $32.00/hour - Holland Room TOWN HALL -Non-Aurora Based Groups $31.00/hour $31.00/hour (p) - Leksand Room $37.001hour $37.OD/hour - Holland Room TOWN HALL- COUNCIL CHAMBERS $51.00/hour $51.00/hour - Aurora Based Groups $105.00lhour $105.00/hour (q) - Non -Aurora Based Groups $210.00/hour $210.00lhour - ProfessionallCommercial Based Groups $25.00/per 25 people $25.00Iper 25 people - Coffee Service (r) TOWN HALL - SKYLIGHT GALLERY $75.00/3 hours $75.0013 hours PUBLIC LIBRARY - Pine Tree Potters $6,600.00/year $6,600.00/year (s) -Meeting Room #1/#2 - Magna Room $31.00lhour $31,00/hour -Meeting Room #3-Lebovic Room $27.00/hour $27.001hour JACKWOODS $2,066.67/month $2,066.67/month - York Region Nelghbourhood Services Inc. McMAHON PARK $624.00/year $624.00/year - Aurora Lawn Bowling Club $1,508.00 $1,508.00 rm) - Aurora CommunityTennis Club PROSHOP $2,400.00/year $2,400.00/year MUSEUM - ' NOTE: The revenue from this Agreement goes directly into $16,079.001year $16,079,00/year Treasury Department and not Leisure Services. THEATREAURORA $2.00lyear $2.00/year AURORA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE $3,369.70/year $3,369.701year AURORA MODEL AIRCRAFT CLUB (AMAC) $1,000.00/year $1,000.00/year r(a) PLAYING FIELD USER FEES Adult Ball $12.90/per hour $13.55/per hour Youth Ball $8.60/per hour $8.601per hour (c) YouthlAdult Soccer $6.151hour $6.50/hour (d) Rugby $6.15/per hour $6.50/per hour $188.52/per tournament $198.00/per tournament (a) Soccer/Rugby Tournaments plus $6.15 per pitch per hour plus $6.50 per pitch per hour 4- -70- COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 LGENDA ITEM # 8 'TOWN OF AURORA COUNCIL REPORT No. TR05-014 SUBJECT: Community Survey (revised questionnaire) FROM: Jim Carey, Director of Finance/Treasurer DATE: February 8, 2005 RECOMMENDATIONS THAT Council approve the use of the attached revised survey questionnaire to conduct the community survey. AND THAT Council approve the use of the attached advertisement in the Town Page and on the Web site to promote participation in the community survey. BACKGROUND On December 20 Council reviewed the draft community survey questionnaire and had a number of concerns about the length of time the survey would take to complete and about the questions that were included or deleted. Council directed THAT review of the Community Survey questionnaire be deferred to the January 18, 2005 General Committee meeting (minute attached as Appendix "C"). Due to the heavy agenda on January 18, staff agreed to bring this report forward at the February 1, General Committee. On February 1, Council agreed to proceed with the survey pending some minor revisions to the questionnaire. The consultant has revised the questionnaire, attached as Appendix A, and submitted an invoice for $1,284 forwork completed to date. Staff recommends that the attached survey and advertisement be approved and that the survey go ahead as soon as possible. On November 9 Council approved the Finance Advisory Committee minutes of FAC04-03 - October 14, 2004 Finance Advisory Committee Meeting 2. Report TR04-016 - Core Services Review THAT the Finance Advisory Committee recommend approval, in principle, of conducting a Core Services Review to be considered as part of the 2006 budget process; and -71- COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 February 8, 2005 - 2 - Report No. TR05-014 THAT, as Phase One of the process, staff be authorized to pursue a consultant to prepare and conduct a representative survey of Aurora residents to determine the needs of the community at an upset cost of $24,000 to be funded from the Municipal Capital Reserve; and THAT the proposed survey questions be presented at a future General Committee meeting; and THAT, upon the completion of the survey, the results be presented at a future General Committee meeting; and THAT the Finance Advisory Committee and staff develop Terms of Reference and a timeline for the conduct of the Core Services Review. This report deals with the community survey. The Town issued a request for proposal and received 7 bids. The contract was awarded to OraclePoll Research for $14,000. Staff spoke with Dr. Paul Seccaspina, PhD, President and CEO of the firm and discussed potential questions and timeline. COMMENTS The survey will be conducted by phone and should take about ten to twelve minutes per interview. The survey will commence as soon as possible in 2005 to enable substantial completion in time for inclusion in the operating budget reviews. Since the first draft of the 2005 budget is not coming to Council until February 19, there is still time to consider the results of the survey in the 2005 budget process. The draft questions have been reviewed and revisions recommended by Management Team on December 8th and the Finance Advisory Committee on December 9th. The attached draft questionnaire (Appendix A) has also been revised to reduce the number of questions and thereby reduce the amount of time respondents will spend on the phone. The questions will provide a good indication of the priorities of a representative sample of 625 residents. Advertising on the Town Page and Town Web -site (Appendix B) will help ensure participation in the survey by assuring residents that this is a Town sponsored survey and that the results will be used to advise the 2005 budget process. -7 2- COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 February 8, 2005 - 3 - Report No. TR05-014 Council asked staff to review options to allow greater participation by residents: • Post the questionnaire on the web site ($1,500 for programming and layout+ $1,000 for web hosting + $1.80 per completed questionnaire) • Send out the survey by e-mail or post -mail to community leaders ($10 per response + $500 for a monthly report) • Allow other residents to phone in their responses ($15 per response + $500 for a monthly report) Staff has reviewed these options and have the following concerns. Each of these options will entail some cost in either actual dollars, staff time or both. The results of any such responses should be kept separate from the phone survey results since they could compromise the validity of the phone survey results. Staff are seriously concerned that interest groups could potentially distort the outcomes of the survey and will not enhance the validity of the survey. Dr. Paul Seccaspina, PhD., president and CEO of OraclePoll Research, will present the results of the survey to a Council meeting in February or March, prior to the finalization of the 2005 operating budget. OPTIONS 1. Approve the use of the questionnaire and advertisement; 2. Delay the community survey until the fall FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The survey has been approved at a cost of $14,000. Any additions may entail further costs. CONCLUSIONS The survey has been revised several times to focus on questions of primary importance to the Town of Aurora. The length of the questionnaire has been reduced somewhat and should still provide significant information that will be very useful to staff and members of Council. LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN Goal "A" — To Maintain a Well Managed and Fiscally Responsible Municipality. —73— COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 February 8, 2005 - 4 - Report No. TR05-014 ATTACHMENTS Appendix A - "Town of Aurora 2005 Questionnaire — February 3, 2005" Appendix B - "Public Notice (Draft)" PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW Management Team — January 26, 2005 Prepared by. Jim Carey Director of Finance/Treasurer —74— COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 Appendix A - Draft Community Survey Questionnaire February 3, 2005 [Town of Aurora is referred to in this questionnaire as TOWN only — the full name will be read] PREAMBLE #1 Good morning/afternoon/evening, I am calling on behalf of the Town of Aurora from Oraclepoll Research to get your input on a number of issues related to the services the Town offers. Town Council and staff will use the results to ensure that citizens receive high quality municipal service delivery. The survey will take about 15 minutes of your time and all responses will be kept confidential. The information gathered for the Town is important for the TOWN Council to help to plan for the future of our community. Are you a permanent resident of the TOWN of Aurora and are 18 years of age or over? Are you one of the persons at this household who makes payment and other decisions about areas such as utility and municipal tax bills? **IF CORRECT PERSON, GO TO Q1 AND THEN Q1. May I speak to the person at this residence who is responsible for these decisions? **IF OCCUPIED: Is there a time that would be more convenient for me to call back? Day Time **IF NOT AVAILABLE: When would be the best time to contact this person? Day Time -75- COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 Draft Community Survey Questionnaire January 12, 2005 I will first ask a few questions about the Town of Aurora and its future Q1. In your opinion, what is the most important issue currently facing the TOWN OF AURORA? OPEN / KEEP TO 10 WORDS OR LESS Q2. Using the scale where five is very good and one is very poor, how would you rate the overall quality of life in the TOWN? • 1-very poor ❑ • 2-poor ❑ • 3-neither poor nor good ❑ • 4-good ❑ • 5-very good ❑ • Don't know ❑ Q3. Overall, would you say that the TOWN is changing for the better, or for the worse? • For the worse ❑ • No change at all ❑ • For the better ❑ • Don't know ❑ Q4. When considering all aspects of the various services that the TOWN provides you (as a citizen of the community), how would you rate your overall level of satisfaction with these services? Please respond using a scale from 1-very dissatisfied to 5-very satisfied. • 1-very dissatisfied • 2-dissatisfied • 3-neither satisfied nor dissatisfied • 4-satisfied • 5-very satisfied • Don't know Using the same scale from 1-very dissatisfied to 5-very satisfied, how would you rate the following? Q5. The way the town communicates to constituents like you • 1-very dissatisfied 2-dissatisfied • 3-neither satisfied nor dissatisfied • 4-satisfied 5-very satisfied • Don't know Q6. The overall level of safety that you feel living in the community • 1-very dissatisfied • 2-dissatisfied • 3-neither satisfied nor dissatisfied • 4-satisfied • 5-very satisfied • Don't know —76— COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 Draft Community Survey Questionnaire January 1Z 2005 Q7. How concerned are you about traffic congestion in Aurora? Please use a scale from one not at all concerned to five very concerned. • 1-not at all concerned go to Q9 • 2-not concerned go to Q9 • 3-neither unconcerned nor concerned go to Q8 • 4-concerned go to Q8 • 5-very concerned go to Q8 • Don't know go to Q9 Q8. In your opinion, what can be done to improve traffic congestion in Aurora? OPEN Q9. How concerned are you about the current level of development and growth in Aurora? Please use a scale from one not at all concerned to five very concerned. • 1-not at all concerned go to Q11 • 2-not concerned go to Q11 Y 3-neither unconcerned nor concerned go to Q10 • 4-concerned go to Q10 • 5-very concerned go to Q10 • Don't know go to Q11 Q10. In your opinion, what are the key issues around development and growth in Aurora? OPEN I am now going to read a list of key services that the TOWN provides. Please rate the importance of each one to you as a citizen of the community, using a scale from 1- not at all important to 5-very important. The first section deals with community services provided. Q11.Public parks • 1-Not at all important • 2-not important • 3-neither important nor unimportant • 4-important • 5-very important • Don't know Q12.Municipal indoor recreational facilities 1-Not at all important 2-not important • 3-neither important nor unimportant 4-important • 5-very important • Don't know —77— COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 Draft Community Survey Questionnaire January 12, 2005 Q13.Municipal outdoor sports facilities • 1-Not at all important • 2-not important • 3-neither important nor unimportant • 4-important • 5-very important • Don't know Q14.Municipal recreational programs • 1-Not at all important • 2-not important • 3-neither important nor unimportant • 4-important • 5-very important • Don't know Q15.Garbage collection & recycling • 1-Not at all important 2-not important 3-neither important nor unimportant 4-important • 5-very important • Don't know Q16.Public library services • 1-Not at all important • 2-not important • 3-neither important nor unimportant • 4-important • 5-very important • Don't know Q17.Fire prevention and fire education programs 1-Not at all important • 2-not Important • 3-neither important nor unimportant • 4-important • 5-very important • Don't know Q18.Walking / biking trails • 1-Not at all important • 2-not important • 3-neither important nor unimportant • 4-important • 5-very important 0 Don't know cam COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 Draft Community Survey Questionnaire January 12, 2005 Next I will ask you to rate the importance of transportation and public works services. Q19. On having street parking restrictions near your residence • 1-Not at all important • 2-not important • 3-neither important nor unimportant 4-important 5-very important Don't know Q20. Traffic signals installation and operation • 1-Not at all important • 2-not important • 3-neither important nor unimportant • 4-important • 5-very important Don't know Q21. Providing adequate street lighting on municipal roads 1-Not at all important • 2-not important 3-neither important nor unimportant • 4-important • 5-very important • Don't know Q22. Municipal road and sidewalk maintenance • 1-Not at all important f 2-not important 3-neither important nor unimportant • 4-important • 5-very important • Don't know Q23. Winter road maintenance (snow clearing) • 1-Not at all important • 2-not important • 3-neither important nor unimportant • 4-important • 5-very important • Don't know Q24. Street sweeping 1-Not at all important • 2-not important • 3-neither important nor unimportant • 4-important • 5-very important • Don't know —79— COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 Draft Community Survey Questionnaire January 12, 2005 Q25. Having traffic control and calming initiatives in your neighbourhood (such as speed bumps, 4-way stops, planters etc...) • 1-Not at all important • 2-not important • 3-neither important nor unimportant 4-important • 5-very important • Don't know The next section deals with the importance of planning and building services. Q26. How important is the land use planning and development of the town as a whole to you 1-Not at all important • 2-not important • 3-neither important nor unimportant • 4-important • 5-very important • Don't know Q27. How important is it to you in having the Town notify its citizens about public participation opportunities for new development proposals • 1-Not at all important • 2-not important • 3-neither important nor unimportant • 4-important • 5-very important • Don't know Q28. How important is the promotion of the town as a place to locate employment such as hi -tech companies i 1-Not at all important • 2-not important 3-neither important nor unimportant 4-important • 5-very important • Don't know Q29. How important is the appearance or look of new developments in Aurora • 1-Not at all important • 2-not important • 3-neither important nor unimportant • 4-important • 5-very important • Don't know Q30. Preserving and re -using heritage buildings • 1-Not at all important • 2-not important • 3-neither important nor unimportant • 4-important • 5-very important • Don't know IM COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 Draft Community Survey Questionnaire January 12, 2005 Please rate the importance of the following corporate services. Q31. Enforcing street parking by-laws • 1-Not at all important • 2-not important • 3-neither important nor unimportant • 4-important • 5-very important • Don't know Q32.Having convenient parking where needed, such as near the Go Train Station • 1-Not at all important • 2-not important • 3-neither important nor unimportant • 4-important • 5-very important • Don't know Q33. Having services provided by an animal shelter (adoptions, pet and wildlife information, animal control) • 1-Not at all important • 2-not important • 3-neither important nor unimportant • 4-important • 5-very important • Don't know Q34. Having flexible methods of payment for Town services (such as on-line, telephone, direct deposit etc...) • 1-Not at all important 2-not important • 3-neither important nor unimportant • 4-important • 5-very important • Don't know I am now going to read again the services that the TOWN provides. This time I am going to ask you to rate your satisfaction with each of the services provided by the TOWN. Please note that for some areas I may ask if you have used a specific service. The first section deals with community services provided. Q35.Have you used or visited a municipal park in the past 12 months? Q36. Overall, how would you rate your satisfaction with the maintenance and condition of municipal parks using a scale from 1-very dissatisfied to five very satisfied • 1-very dissatisfied • 2-dissatisfied • 3-neither satisfied nor dissatisfied • 4-satisfied • 5-very satisfied • Don't know COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 Draft Community Survey Questionnaire January 12, 2005 Q37. Have you used or visited any municipal indoor recreational facilities in the past 12months? Q38. Overall, how would you rate your satisfaction with the maintenance and condition of Indoor recreational facilities • 1-very dissatisfied • 2-dissatisfied • 3-neither satisfied nor dissatisfied • 4-satisfied • 5-very satisfied • Don't know Q39. Have you used or visited any municipal outdoor sports facilities in the past 12months? Q40. Overall, how would you rate your satisfaction with the maintenance and condition outdoor sports facilities • 1-very dissatisfied • 2-dissatisfied • 3-neither satisfied nor dissatisfied • 4-satisfied • 5-very satisfied • Don't know Q41. Have you used any municipal recreational programs in the past 12months? Q42. Overall, how would you rate your satisfaction with the municipal recreational programs available • 1-very dissatisfied • 2-dissatisfied • 3-neither satisfied nor dissatisfied • 4-satisfied • 5-very satisfied • Don't know Q43.Please rate your satisfaction with garbage collection & recycling services • 1-very dissatisfied • 2-dissatisfied • 3-neither satisfied nor dissatisfied • 4-satisfied • 5-very satisfied • Don't know Q44. Have you visited or used the services of the Aurora public library in the past 12 months? MMM COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 Draft Community Survey Questionnaire January 12, 2005 Q45.Overall, how would you rate the service provided by the Aurora public library • 1-very dissatisfied • 2-dissatisfied • 3-neither satisfied nor dissatisfied • 4-satisfied • 5-very satisfied • Don't know Q46. Have you required the services of the fire department in the past 12 months? Q47. Overall, how would you rate your satisfaction with the quality of fire fighting services provided • 1-very dissatisfied • 2-dissatisfied • 3-neither satisfied nor dissatisfied • 4-satisfied • 5-very satisfied • Don't know Q48. Are you aware of any fire prevention and fire education programs in the community? Q49. Overall, how would you rate your satisfaction with fire prevention and fire education programs • 1-very dissatisfied • 2-dissatisfied • 3-neither satisfied nor dissatisfied • 4-satisfied • 5-very satisfied • Don't know Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following using a scale from one very dissatisfied to five very satisfied. Q50. Walking/ biking trails • 1-very dissatisfied • 2-dissatisfied • 3-neither satisfied nor dissatisfied • 4-satisfied • 5-very satisfied • Don't know Q51. On having street parking restrictions near your residence • 1-very dissatisfied • 2-dissatisfied • 3-neither satisfied nor dissatisfied • 4-satisfied • 5-very satisfied • Don't know W-M COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 Draft Community Survey Questionnaire January 12, 2005 Q52. Traffic signals installation and operation • 1-very dissatisfied • 2-dissatisfied • 3-neither satisfied nor dissatisfied • 4-satisfied • 5-very satisfied Don't know Q53. Providing adequate street lighting on municipal roads • 1-very dissatisfied • 2-dissatisfied • 3-neither satisfied nor dissatisfied • 4-satisfied • 5-very satisfied • Don't know Q54. Municipal road and sidewalk maintenance 1-very dissatisfied • 2-dissatisfied • 3-neither satisfied nor dissatisfied • 4-satisfied • 5-very satisfied • Don't know Q55. Winter road maintenance (snow clearing) • 1-very dissatisfied • 2-dissatisfied • 3-neither satisfied nor dissatisfied • 4-satisfied • 5-very satisfied • Don't know COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 Draft Community Survey Questionnaire January 12, 2005 Q56. Street sweeping • 1-very dissatisfied • 2-dissatisfied • 3-neither satisfied nor dissatisfied • 4-satisfied • 5-very satisfied • Don't know Q57. On having traffic control and calming initiatives in your neighbourhood (such as speed bumps, 4-way stops, planters etc... ) • 1-very dissatisfied • 2-dissatisfied • 3-neither satisfied nor dissatisfied • 4-satisfied • 5-very satisfied • Don't know Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following planning and development issues. Q58. The overall land use planning and development of the Town • 1-very dissatisfied f 2-dissatisfied • 3-neither satisfied nor dissatisfied • 4-satisfied • 5-very satisfied • Don't know Q59. On the Town notifying citizens about public participation opportunities for new development proposals • 1-very dissatisfied 2-dissatisfied • 3-neither satisfied nor dissatisfied • 4-satisfied • 5-very satisfied • Don't know Q60. On the Town promoting Aurora as a place to locate employment • 1-very dissatisfied • 2-dissatisfied • 3-neither satisfied nor dissatisfied • 4-satisfied • 5-very satisfied • Don't know Q61. The appearance or look of new developments in Aurora • 1-very dissatisfied • 2-dissatisfied • 3-neither satisfied nor dissatisfied • 4-satisfied • 5-very satisfied • Don't know W-M COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 Draft Community Survey Questionnaire January 12, 2005 Q62. Preserving and re -using heritage buildings • 1-very dissatisfied • 2-dissatisfied • 3-neither satisfied nor dissatisfied • 4-satisfied • 5-very satisfied • Don't know Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following. Q63. Enforcing street parking by-laws • 1-very dissatisfied 2-dissatisfied • 3-neither satisfied nor dissatisfied • 4-satisfied • 5-very satisfied • Don't know Q64. Having convenient parking where needed, such as near the GO Train Station • 1-very dissatisfied • 2-dissatisfied • 3-neither satisfied nor dissatisfied • 4-satisfied • 5-very satisfied • Don't know Q65. Services provided by an animal shelter (adoptions, pet and wildlife information, animal control) • 1-very dissatisfied 2-dissatisfied 3-neither satisfied nor dissatisfied • 4-satisfied • 5-very satisfied Don't know Q66. Having flexible methods of payment for Town services (such as on-line, telephone, direct deposit etc...) • 1-very dissatisfied 2-dissatisfied • 3-neither satisfied nor dissatisfied • 4-satisfied • 5-very satisfied • Don't know Please disagree or agree with the following statement using a scale from one strongly disagree to five strongly agree. Q67. Where appropriate the direct users of Municipal services should pay for the cost of providing those services • 1-strongly disagree • 2-somewhat disagree • 3-neither disagree nor agree (neutral) • 4-somewhat agree • 5-strongly agree • Don't know COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 Draft Community Survey Questionnaire January 12, 2005 Q68. Are there any areas with respect to any of the municipal services or facilities that we have discussed that you are willing to pay a user fee in order to have improved or expanded service? • 1-none / no • OPEN RECORD VERBATIM • 100-Don't know I maybe Q69. Have you had any contact with a Town staff member over the last 12 months? Yes ❑ (go to Q70) No ❑ (go to Q77) Q70. Using a scale from 1-very dissatisfied to 5-very satisfied, how would you rate your overall satisfaction with this experience? • 1-very dissatisfied • 2-dissatisfied • 3-neither satisfied nor dissatisfied • 4-satisfied • 5-very satisfied • Don't know Please rate Town staff in each of the following areas using a scale from one very dissatisfied to five very satisfied. Q71. The ease of getting to the right staff member for assistance • 1-very dissatisfied 2-dissatisfied 3-neither satisfied nor dissatisfied • 4-satisfied • 5-very satisfied • Don't know Q72. Staff being courteous 1-very dissatisfied • 2-dissatisfied • 3-neither satisfied nor dissatisfied • 4-satisfied • 5-very satisfied • Don't know Q73. Being knowledgeable • 1-very dissatisfied 2-dissatisfied 3-neither satisfied nor dissatisfied • 4-satisfied • 5-very satisfied • Don't know Q74. Providing dependable and accurate service • 1-very dissatisfied • 2-dissatisfied • 3-neither satisfied nor dissatisfied • 4-satisfied • 5-very satisfied • Don't know COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 Draft Community Survey Questionnaire January 12, 2005 Q75. Providing service in a timely fashion • 1-very dissatisfied • 2-dissatisfied • 3-neither satisfied nor dissatisfied • 4-satisfied • 5-very satisfied • Don't know Q76. Going the extra mile to provide you with service • 1-very dissatisfied • 2-dissatisfied • 3-neither satisfied nor dissatisfied • . 4-satisfied • 5-very satisfied • Don't know I am going to read a list of services and I would like you to tell me the degree that you would like to have additional public funds spent on them. Please use a scale from 1 where you definitely do not want additional funds spent to where 5 means you definitely want additional funds spent. Q77. Public library services • 1-definitely do not want • 2-do not want • 3-neither want nor do not want • 4-want • 5-definitely want • Don't know Q78. Public parks • 1-definitely do not want • 2-do not want • 3-neither want nor do not want • 4-want • 5-definitely want • Don't know Q79. Walking/biking trails • 1-definitely do not want • 2-do not want • 3-neither want nor do not want • 4-want • 5-definitely want • Don't know Q80. Streetscape flowers and trees • 1-definitely do not want • 2-do not want • 3-neither want nor do not want • 4-want • 5-definitely want • Don't know COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 Draft Community Survey Questionnaire January 12, 2005 Q81. Road and sidewalk maintenance • 1-definitely do not want • 2-do not want • 3-neither want nor do not want • 4-want • 5-definitely want • Don't know Q82. Winter road and sidewalk maintenance • 1-definitely do not want • 2-do not want • 3-neither want nor do not want • 4-want • 5-definitely want • Don't know Q83. Windrow or end of driveway snow bank plowing 1-definitely do not want • 2-do not want • 3-neither want nor do not want • 4-want • 5-definitely want • Don't know Q84. Recreational programs • 1-definitely do not want • 2-do not want • 3-neither want nor do not want • 4-want • 5-definitely want • Don't know Q85. Indoor recreational facilities • 1-definitely do not want • 2-do not want • 3-neither want nor do not want • 4-want • 5-definitely want • Don't know Q86. Outdoor sports facilities • 1-definitely do not want • 2-do not want • 3-neither want nor do not want • 4-want • 5-definitely want • Don't know I�'Z COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 Draft Community Survey Questionnaire January 12, 2005 Q87. Fire services • 1-definitely do not want • 2-do not want • 3-neither want nor do not want • 4-want 5-definitely want • Don't know Q88. Garbage/recycling collection • 1-definitely do not want • 2-do not want 3-neither want nor do not want • 4-want • 5-definitely want • Don't know Q89. Municipal bylaw enforcement • 1-definitely do not want • 2-do not want • 3-neither want nor do not want • 4-want • 5-definitely want • Don't know Q90. Animal care facility • 1-definitely do not want • 2-do not want • 3-neither want nor do not want • 4-want • 5-definitely want • Don't know Q91. What service areas that we have discussed today, where you tax dollars are currently spent, would you like to see reduced, if any? None Don't know PROVIDE LIST OF SERVICES TO CODE Open -Record Q92. What is the preferred method by which you would like to receive information from Town Hall regarding important issues, updates or initiatives? • Mail • Internet Website • E-mails • Town page in local newspaper • Television • Radio • Public meetings • Print publications • Live person on telephone • None / do not want .= COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 Draft Community Survey Questionnaire January 12, 2005 Q93. Where do you currently receive most of your information about the Town? • Local newspapers • Local media • Call the Town • Televised Council meetings • Town website • Electronic sign (Yonge & Aurora Heights) • Interaction with Mayor or Councilor • Directly from staff • Other (specify) Q94. Do you have access to the Internet, at home, work or school? Q95. Have you ever accessed the Town website - www.town.aurora.on.ca? Q95a. How would you rate the functionality of the Town website - www.town.aurora.on.ca? • 1-very dissatisfied • 2-dissatisfied • 3-neither satisfied nor dissatisfied • 4-satisfied • 5-very satisfied • Don't know Q96. What is the likelihood that you would access the Town website - www.town.aurora.on.ca to use on-line services, i.e. recreation program registration, ticket payments, tax/water billing payments? Please use a scale from one not at all likely to five very likely. We are near the end of our survey. The following questions involve collecting demographic data. This information is statistically important for this survey and please be assured, once again, that all individual responses are kept in strict confidence. D1. Do you commute out of Aurora on a daily basis [i.e. for work, school, volunteer...]? D2. What is the highest level of education that you have achieved? • Less than a high school graduation certificate • High school graduation certificate and/or some postsecondary • Trades certificate or diploma • College certificate or diploma • University certificate, diploma or degree D3. What is your combined family income? • Under $35K • Under $36K— 100K • Over $1OOK D4. Which of the following age groups represents your age? • 18-24 • 25-44 • 45-64 —91— COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 Draft Community Survey Questionnaire January 12, 2005 • 65 and over D5. (Do not read) Gender Male Female -92- COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 Appendix B PUBLIC NOTICE (DRAFT) The Town of Aurora Wants to Hear Your Opinion Oraclepoll Research Ltd has been awarded a public tender by the Town to undertake a community wide telephone survey of the citizens of Aurora. The purpose of this scientific survey is to gather -input from citizens on a wide range of issues facing the community. The information collected in the survey will be used by the Town to ensure quality municipal service delivery. In addition, this data will assist Town Council in establishing priorities in the 2005 Budget. The survey is set to begin in January and should you receive a telephone call, your participation would be greatly appreciated, as it will help us to plan for the future of our community. If you have any questions please contact Jim Carey, Director of Finance at (905) 727- 3123 ext. 4111 Or Kristen Yemm, Communications Coordinator at (905) 727-3123 ext. 4228. —93— COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 -TOWN OF AURORA COUNCIL REPORT SUBJECT: Purchasing Bylaw (supplementary report) FROM: Jim Carey, Director of Finance/Treasurer DATE: February 8, 2005 RECOMMENDATIONS �;ITEM # 9 No. TROS-013 THAT Council reaffirm the Purchasing Bylaw that was approved on December 14, 2004. BACKGROUND Staff presented the Purchasing Bylaw for Council approval on December 14, 2004. It was approved but there were a number of concerns expressed by Members of Council with the Bylaw. The approved amendment was "That the revised Purchasing By-law be brought back to Council in January 2005 for further review." This report will address the concerns raised at General Committee on February 1. COMMENTS Continuing concerns were raised by members of Council about 2 issues: What is the policy and practice with respect to informal bids? In reviewing the approved Purchasing Bylaw there is a section of the bylaw that refers to request for quotation (informal) it is attached as Appendix C. If Council wishes, a more detailed procedure can be developed and brought back to Council for review and approval in the next few months. 2. When we issue a tender do we always post it on the web -site and are they also issued electronically? All tenders are posted on the Town website, advertised in the Town notice board in the Aurora Era Banner and posted on the electronic tender network (Bid Navigator — www.bidnavigator.com) which is a subscription based service. COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 February 8, 2005 - 2 - Report No. TR0B-013 OPTIONS 1. Council could reaffirm the Purchasing Bylaw that was approved on December 14, 2004. 2. Council could choose to revert to the dollar limits in the previous purchasing policy for formal quotations, informal quotations and vehicle purchases. This is not recommended as it would increase administrative burden without enhancing accountability. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS No direct savings. However, some reductions in administrative effort by staff would be achieved by using the approved purchasing limits. CONCLUSIONS Staff recommend that the Bylaw be reaffirmed as approved on December 14, 2004. LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN Goal "A" — To Maintain a Well Managed and Fiscally Responsible Municipality. ATTACHMENTS Appendix A - "York Purchasing Limit Comparison" Appendix B - "Purchasing Bylaw (Background)" Appendix C — "Standard Procurement Methods" PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW Management Team - January 26, 2005 Prepared by. Jim Carey, Director of Finance / Treasurer —95— COUN Z 0 CO d 0 QU X� J Z CD W Z 0 U) na a= U a Y O } ai > m F" o .00 o Q Q f6 N y 6 .D O W N N o •� N '.p N .0 lD a CD 0 YO 2 O z m E 3 a 7 o` U) ) c.21 e o o 'S c aa) 0 4? m aoi o O 0 aU) 0 o C F o n o °> .� o n m o n w 0 0)) o w a) o m o O o n -O p O 0 F O (D Or O N C O a) O. 0 2 > o O uio Lo O• O (D om o N oa 0 @ e N_= N> O ` N 7 N 7 6% M N> O' O' c O d C 6`icr 64 3 2 'i�i EPr -, N p fA 64 O" �. O' (A •O 2 69 .+ 00 0 a u. ""' c o ' o' a N i N n a) c I a) O0 ' c O N O c O a) O i6 toil :t. vi .- 7 O i "- W= 0>> O. 0 m 0 E N 0 I'- Lo C O E 0 O a) a) O h Q c\T d j- � )= L 3 N� N� O C M� `-� C O p .'= t(j <A M 36% M W co wt`7 642 fAM �M �Uc W64 O O 0 + O O O O O O N ,o "0 0' O y O O O O O O O O O O a) _p N 00 '= pp O O O O O O O O O O c 0 0 F W 0 0 0 0 O N 0 'o O N y a 0 M. LOO Hi t0O (Al - O N r r r r r y i to O 6% 69 O ' V3 FPr 6% 64 (A 64 1 64 •E o to N 7 y e'yFo O O O O O ' O i O O t O i O O O t O �� m OO CD 0 0 0 0 Is - Q. O fl N W EA 69 69 to 6S W ! + + + + + + + + + FAO m cL 0 a) o c:'p 0 W O O O O O CD O O O CD CD CDI O O O 0 •a •V O y C O O O O O_ O O 0 O O O 0 . 4 0 CD U It O y� O tp O to O O O 04 O 0 O O O O O 0 O N 0 0 a) O N "tO LO V} m C N O fA 6% 64 a C _ c o 6% 6% EA fA a) 7 y 69 L w U ) e W @Q H tS N O O O O o O O O 00 00 00 00 o o - O O O O O O U c c O to c O i4 N to tO M lO N O � r �} O )O w U a. EA 61i FA' e CDncn ?= n�� I I I 0 0 m�+ Q @� m o0 0 0 �c ccUc a)- a) O o lO vi (1) + a) O () E o r r r n N co mw o 18 Lu0ani a)t 0 cl O O O O O O O O o e a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v C OO 0 CD lO LOO O O N O LO r r Cl) N In C64 fA fA fA fA 69 M. fA b e m ��e � o� yo 0° e aT a e a =gym e a•+Dw- N o N �_ IS �' a C y3 Co C 3 m =tee = w o a`e�oLS° amp ao.. QWe ez z 'ae a a 3v�s a� am COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 APPENDIX "B" PURCHASING BYLAW (BACKGROUND) In March 2003 a comprehensive review was completed on the Purchasing Policy, resulting in an accountable and transparent centralized process, easy to use by all departments. As stated in the March 2003 report to Council, this amendment to the policy addressed all Municipal Act requirements needed by January 2005, other than "in-house bidding" and the fact that it needed to be a By -Law. Since the review had been so extensive, it was decided that we would wait to formalize the document into by-law so that any changes could be incorporated prior to Jan 2005. As it turned out, all departments were happy with the new policy, and compliance was almost 100%. As this was a requirement for all Municipalities in Ontario, the York Purchasing Co-op seized the opportunity to take this on as a project and struck a sub- committee to develop a generic template for use by all York Region municipalities. There were several advantages to this -- one being that vendors, taxpayers and the public would have greater consistency in dealing with all York Region municipalities; and also it would facilitate a by-law for those smaller municipalities who didn't have a formal purchasing department, consistent with the other York Region municipalities. Since the Aurora policy covered the majority of items required, was being used by the Ontario Public Buyers Association in purchasing courses as a fine policy to follow, and is also on the Ontario Government Municipal Affairs website as an example to copy, we used the Aurora Procurement Policy (March 2003) as a base for our new template. As this policy required re -submission to Council to become a By -Law, the opportunity was taken to enhance a few areas: • The PURPOSES, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES became the first section; • Several definitions were added to the DEFINITIONS section; • The PROCUREMENT METHODS section was enhanced to expand on several procurement methods in use; • The difference between SOLE SOURCE and SINGLE SOURCE procurement is defined; • The opportunity for using IN-HOUSE BIDDING was defined; • The formalization of the BID REVIEW COMMIITTEE, used since March 2003, was explained; —97— COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 • Several points were added to the existing BID IRREGULARITIES SECTION (appendix "B") to address concerns which had been identified in the tendering process; • Information pertaining to POLICY AND PROCEDURES (which are not part of a By-law) was extracted to be included in the future development of a Procurement Policy and Procedures manual; • A copy of the CORPORATE LEASING POLICY was added for information, as it pertains to procurement; • The requirement to report vehicles and heavy equipment to Council a second time (after tendering) was removed unless over budget estimates previously approved by Council; • The dollar thresholds requiring formal advertised quotes were increased to $20,000.00 to allow more flexibility in acquiring bids. This will not "decentralize" the process in this dollar range; rather, practical alternate methods of competitive bidding could be used such as: • "Invitations to Bid" (using a competitive bid process for urgent requirements from a pre -qualified list of bidders familiar with Town requirements), • "Reverse Auctions" (where a requirement is posted on the internet and firms compete to bid the lowest price), "Negotiation" (as a result of single or sole source), or competitive "fax or internet" quotes could be obtained. Staff will still consult with the Purchasing Division on the most effective method prior to obtaining a Purchase Order; • VENDOR PERFORMANCE will be monitored by purchasing and the department head on projects where appropriate SATreasuryTurchasing\BY-LAW 20041NOVEMBER 2004 FINAL DRAFTWAN 05 Council re BYLAMClarification for Council for GC January 18th.doc •m COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, ATTACHMENT C By -Law Number 4621 - 04.17 SCHEDULE "C" - STANDARD PROCUREMENT METHODS The following are authorized procedures for the procurement of goods, services, and construction, excluding pre-existing agreements. ` _ 0EON . T O G@ P Gk THREa5110 exeludlitq;�Yaxe"s�)"`FIL Ell Under $2,500.00 LOW VALUE purchases made from the direct no report to PURCHASE competitive marketplace acquisition Council where possible and practicable by fax, email, (with cheque required ' q telephone requisition) REQUEST FOR - minimum 3 written quotes Purchase no report to $2,500.01 - - QUOTATION to be obtained where possible; or Order Council $20,000.00 (informal) - Invitation to bid from list of required required pre=qualified bidders; or (with Purchase - direct negotiation as a requisition) result of single or sole source; or Advertised requests for written_quotes where possible REQUEST FOR Advertised -websitelETN Purchase no report to $20,000.01 — QUOTATION Order Council $50,000.00 (formal) (with Purchase required requisition) over $50,000.00 REQUEST FOR TENDER Advertised -websitelETN, Purchase report to may advertise in local Order (with Council and/or trade paper Purchase requisition) (copy to and Purchasing prior to Executed SMT) Contract REQ�l1EE` ©�O'",,�4C(�...4 Tz �P�/ - -- -- /A21d,I under $20,000.00 Written proposal Purchase no report to approved by Department Order Council Head (with Purchase required requisition) $20,000.01 to REQUEST FOR Advertised on Purchase no report to $50,000.00 PROPOSAL website/ETN, may Order (with Council advertise in local and/or Purchase required trade paper requisition) and Executed Contract over $50,000.00 REQUEST FOR Review by solicitor prior Purchase report to PROPOSAL to issuing bid call Order (with Council _ Advertised on Purchase requisition) (copy to websitelETN, may advertise in local and/or and Purchasing prior to trade paper Executed SMT) Contract 3..E PRESS Y � T REQUEST FOR Advertised on no contract. no report to INFORMATION ONLY, websitelETN, may Followed by Council N/A may be followed by advertise in local and/or trade paper further required q INVITATION TO BID or request PREQUALIFIED TENDER. COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 AGENDA ITEM # 10 'TOWN OF AURORA COUNCIL No. PL05-005 SUBJECT: Official Plan and Zoning By-IawAmendments D09-09-03 and D14-27-03, respectively Lebovic Enterprises Inc. and Revlis Ltd. Part 6 of Plan 65R-14776 and Blocks 7, 8, 9, & 11 of Plan 65114-2718 Industrial Parkway North FROM: Susan Seibert, Director of Planning DATE: February 8, 2005 RECOMMENDATIONS THAT Council endorse Staff Report PL05-005. THAT Staff Report PL05-005 and Council's Resolution related thereto be forwarded to the Ontario Municipal Board for its information in connection with the Hearing to be convened in connection with the appeals filed by Lebovic Enterprises Inc. and Revlis Ltd. THAT Staff and such additional outside experts as required attend at the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing regarding the subject applications to continue to defend Town Council's position of non-support of the proposed industrial conversion. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE On October 27, 2004, an advertised Public Information Session was held at Town Hall to introduce the subject development proposal to the public and to provide a forum for the public to ask questions and provide comments related thereto. A copy of the October 27, 2004 report prepared by Town staff and presented at the Public Information Session is included as Attachment'A' to this report. That report describes the development applications, summarizes technical comments provided by the various review departments and agencies to date related to the proposal, confirms the outstanding information yet to be filed by the proponent and highlights a number of concerns related to the proposed industrial conversion bid. -100- COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 February 8, 2005 - 2 - Report No. PL05-005 The proposal entails redesignating and rezoning a vacant 5.07 ha site from industrial to residential to permit the development of 82 apartment units in a 7-storey building, and 191 townhouses of up to 3.5 storeys for a total of 273 affordable dwelling units. A 0.265 ha on - site community park is also proposed in the southeast corner of the property. In exchange for the provision of affordable housing on site, the proponent is also seeking density bonusing that would permit the development of up to 337 dwelling units, consisting of 98 apartments and 239 townhouse units. The purpose of the subject report is to summarize comments provided by the public at the October 27, 2004 Public Information Session, provide Town Council with updated information related to the development since the matter was last before it, identify information still outstanding and required by the Town, and confirm its resolution of December 16, 2003 directing staff and other outside experts to attend the OMB Hearing to ensure that the Applications not be approved. It is worth noting that the Ontario Municipal Board has scheduled a Pre -hearing Conference for Tuesday, March 1, 2005 at its own initiative to ascertain the status of the subject development applications and related appeals. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS Three residents attended the October 27, 2004 Public Information Session. These attendees included the President of the Bayview Greens Ratepayers Association who spoke on behalf of Association members residing east of the development site, across the Holland River. The following comments were offered by members of the public at the conclusion of the presentations made by the Town of Aurora Planning and Development Services Department and the proponent related to the development proposal. The proposed residential development is not acceptable and the subject lands should be retained for industrial purposes consistentwith the understanding of residents of the Bayview Greens Ratepayers Association at the time they bought their homes. Creation of lower -end housing at this location may result in an undesirable living environment and may reduced property values in the upscale Bayview Greens community to the east since the proposed development may be viewed as part of the Bayview Greens neighbourhood. The living environment for future residents is a concern particularly due to the mixing of heavy trucks/tractor trailers with residential traffic and children along Industrial Parkway North should the development be approved. 2 —101— COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 February 8, 2005 - 3 - Report No. PL05-005 The target school for public elementary students, namely Northern Lights Public School (located east of the Holland River) is already overcrowded and will only worsen as a result of the students generated from this unplanned residential development. That any plan to connect the proposed residential development with the Bayview Greens community to the east, across the Holland River, would not be supported by the Ratepayers Association due to concerns related to personal safety arising from incidents of trespass from the industrial area. Today, these two distinct and different land use areas are physically separated by the Holland River and its associated valleylands. ■ There is no certainty that the proposed housing will remain affordable in perpetuity, thus calling into question the purported public benefit arising from the provision of affordable housing in the Town. ■ A park should be created on the subject lands if the site grades are in fact prohibitive to industrial development, and given of the proponent's claim that the development site is debt free and the proposal is not profit -driven. ■ While the proponent raised the possibility of certain changes to the application in an attempt to appease the residents' concerns, residents advised that the suggested changes were of limited value since they did not address their primary concern that no residential development occur at this site. ■ The President of the Bayview Greens Ratepayers Association confirmed the Association's continued position of non-support for the residential development. proposal as well as its continuing party status before the OMB. UPDATED INFORMATION Neighbouring Industrial Development Activity Since this application was last considered by Council, the owner of the lands immediately to the south of the subject site, Terra Aurora Limited, has submitted a site plan application (File D11-09-04) on behalf of Avant Imaging & Information Management (AIIM) seeking to permit construction of a extensive 8 030 mZ addition to the existing industrial building at 205 Industrial Parkway North. The lands at 205 Industrial Parkway North share an extensive common lot line with the subject lands. The northerly portion of the proposed building addition will be sited as close as 24.11 m to the common lot line shared with the subject lands, and extends easterly down slope toward the Holland River. Construction of this addition is evidence that there is demand for employment space in this area, increases staffs concerns about incompatibility and potential negative impacts, and demonstrates that the similar topology of that site does not preclude industrial development. —102— COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 February 8, 2005 - 4 - Report No. PL05-005 In October 2004, Town Council authorized the Director of Planning to execute a Site Plan Agreement between Terra Aurora Limited and the Town of Aurora respecting the proposed expansion of the industrial building. Approval of the site plan application is expected in January 2005. Terra Aurora Limited and AIMM are parties to the OMB Hearing related to the subject appeals given their desire to protect their existing and planned industrial investments at 205 Industrial Parkway North. Density Bonusing As noted in Attachment 'A', the applicant is seeking density bonusing for the subject proposal in exchange for the provision of affordable housing on site. In this regard, Section 4.5: Bonusing of the Town's Official Plan permits Town Council, at its discretion, to allow increases in density and height through bonusing in exchange for the provision of facilities, services or matters that reflect the goals and objectives of the Official Plan. Such objectives include contributions towards "socially assisted housing" and "supportive housing". It is worth highlighting that contributions toward the provision of affordable housing do not specifically qualify for bonusing under Section 4.5 of the Plan. In the event Town Council finds favour with the subject applications, it would have to determine if the project should qualify for density bonusing based on prevailing Official Plan policies. Updated Student Yields Recently, the York Catholic District School Board has advised that the proponent's 337-unit density bonusing scheme would generate approximately 46 elementary students who can be accommodated at the nearby new Bayview/W1lellington Elementary School rather than 37 elementary students under the initial 273-unit scheme. Similarly, the York Region District School Board has confirmed that approximately 69 elementary students would arise from the density bonusing proposal versus the 56 students associated with the initial proposal. These 69 public elementary school students will need to be bussed to reach available school accommodation, potentially at a number of different schools, since the local Northern Lights Public School has a projected enrolment in excess of its planned capacity, exclusive of the subject development proposal. The increases in elementary students generated by this proposal development under a density bonusing arrangement may be an issue for existing area residents who expressed a concern with school overcrowding at the October 27, 2004 Public Information Session. Off -site Stormwater Management Facilities on Town Property The preliminary concept plan filed by the proponent indicates provisions for an off -site stormwater facility to serve the development. The proposed stormwater facility is currently proposed on Town -owned lands. In this regard, both the Town of Aurora's Leisure Services Department and its Public Works Department have confirmed that stormwater management facilities to service the development must be maintained on site and are not permitted on Town -owned lands as currently proposed. The proponent was advised of this In —103— COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 February 8, 2005 - 5 - Report No. PL05-005 concern at the October 27, 2004 Public Information Session and a revised stormwater management plan must be filed by the proponent. OUTSTANDING INFORMATION At the October 27, 2004 Public Information Session, the proponent suggested that certain changes could be made to the development proposal to address residents' concerns. To date, no official amendments or revisions to the applications have been filed. Since it is unclear whether the proponent's suggested changes were made without prejudice to its current proposal, the existence or nature of changes to the application cannot be confirmed in this report. Consequently, the applications are being considered in the form originally proposed. The Town of Aurora is still awaiting receipt of both a noise (vibration) feasibility study and an odour and dust report from the proponent, each addressing how land use compatibility between the proposed residential uses and the surrounding industrial area can and will be achieved. In addition, the Town has invited the proponent to submit amended market and traffic studies that respond to issues raised by the Town based upon its review of to the economic and market study (Clayton Research, Apr. 10/03) and traffic (IBI Group, June 4/03) studies previously filed by the proponent. A request for the noise and air quality and the amended market and traffic studies was sent to the proponents' solicitor from the Town on September 9 and October 21, 2004, but to date the Town has received no such studies or study addendums. The proponent has also yet to file a revised stormwater management plan and revised concept plan addressing the Town's concerns with the off -site facilities proposed on Town -owned property. SUMMARY COMMENTS The Town of Aurora Planning and Development Services Department is of the opinion that the subject applications should be refused based on the concerns summarized in Attachment `A', and due to the following reasons. 1. The subject proposal will result in the loss of employment lands, reduce the Town's overall inventory of vacant lands in a central location and, in turn, reduce opportunities available to the Municipality to accommodate certain types of employment or employment -related uses. 2. The proponent has not advanced any compelling land use rationale to support the conversion of the subject lands from industrial to residential. Furthermore, the topography of the subject lands does not preclude development of employment uses on site. —104— COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 February 8, 2005 - 6 - Report No. PL05-005 3. The introduction of residential uses into an established employment area is incompatible with surrounding industrial uses to the west and south given the potential for adverse noise, air quality and traffic operational and safety impacts of these industries on future residents of the development site. These potential adverse impacts are expected to also affect the living environment of future residents of the proposed development. 4. In contrast to the employment uses permitted on the subject lands under the prevailing Official Plan and zoning regimes, introducing residential uses on the subject lands could hinder and/or destabilize surrounding existing and future employment uses and opportunities. 5. The subject applications do not conform to the policy regimes approved by several levels of government. 6. The development proposal does not represent good planning and is not in the public interest. ATTACHMENTS Attachment `A' — Public Information Session Report, October 27, 2004 PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW Management Team Meeting —CAO January 21, 2005. Prepared by: Carol -Anne Munroe, 416-923-6630 ext 5 Sgrensen Gravely Lowes of Planning M —105— COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 ATTACHMENT A TOWN OF AVIONA PUBLIC INFORMATION SESSION Official Plan and Zooing By-law Amendments Lebovic Enterprises Inca and Revils Ltd. 109=09=03 and 11&27-03 WEBNESBAT, OCTOBER 27, 2004 7:00 p.m. NOLLANB ROOM -106- COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 PUBLIC RELEASE 22/10/04 �J l 0 0:M_ Public Information Session AGENDA Wednesday, October 27, 2004 AGENDA ITEM 1. PL04-118 - Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments D09-09-03 and D14-27-03, respectively Lebovic Enterprises Inc. and Reviis Ltd. Part 6 of Plan 65R-14776 and Blocks 7, 8, 9, & 11 of Plan 65M-2718 Industrial Parkway North -107- COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 4 a 'TOWN OF AURORA. PUBLIC INFORMATION SESSION No. PL04-118 SUBJECT: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments D09-09-03 and D14-27-03, respectively Lebovic Enterprises Inc. and Revlis Ltd. Part 6 of Plan 65R-14776 and Blocks 7, 8, 9, & 11 of Plan 65114-2718 Industrial Parkway North FROM: Susan Seibert, Director of Planning DATE: October.27, 2004 BACKGROUND Site Description and Locational Context: On October 15, 2002, Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications were submitted to the Town of Aurora on behalf of Lebovic Enterprises Inc. and Reviis Ltd. (hereafter referred to as the "proponent'). The Applications seek to develop housing and a community park on approximately 5.07 hectares (ha) of vacant land located on the east side of Industrial Parkway North (see Figure 1). The development site consists of four separate parcels within the Industrial Parkway North Employment Area. These four parcels consist of three smaller blocks along Industrial Parkway North and a fourth 3.03 ha block abutting the valleylands of the Holland River to the east. Uses surrounding the development site include valleylands to the east, north and southeast and industrial buildings to the west and south. A portion of the lands to the south also supports a Town park abutting the Holland River valleylands. A newly developed residential subdivision is situated east of the subject lands, across the Holland River and its valleylands. Existing uses within the Industrial Parkway North Employment Area consist predominantly of industrial uses interspersed with recreational and limited institutional uses. Development Proposal: The proponent seeks to redesignate the subject lands from "Industrial' to "Urban Residential" and "Open Space", and to rezone the lands from "General Industrial (M2) Zone" and "General Industrial (M2-3) Exception Zone" to "First Density Residential (RA1-X) Exception Zone", 'Row Dwelling (R6-X) Exception Zone" and "Major Open Space (O-X) Exception Zone". w COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, -2005 -- October 27, 2004 - 2 - Report No. PL04-118 As reflected on the concept plan accompanying the Applications, the development proposal consists of 82 apartment units in a 7-storey building and 191 townhouses of up to 3.5 storeys in height, for a total of 273 dwelling units. According to the proponent, all 273 dwelling units will comprise affordable housing. A 0.265 ha on -site community park is also proposed in the southeast corner of the property. The draft site -specific Official Plan Amendment and zoning by-law submitted by the proponent confirms that density bonusing is being sought in exchange for the provision of affordable housing on site. Under the density bonusing scenario requested by the proponent, an additional 64 dwelling unit could be constructed on the subject lands for a total of 337 units comprised of 98 apartments and 239 townhouses. Based on the information submitted by the proponent, the proposed maximum densities in the draft Official Plan Amendment and relate zoning by-law do not coincide with the densities reflected on the accompanying concept plan. Vehicular access to the subject property is proposed via two accesses along Industrial Parkway North, a designated "major collector" roadway. The northerly access is proposed approximately 300 metres (m) south of St. John's Sideroad with the southerly access situated approximately 100 m further south. Industrial Parkway North is currently a designated truck route and functions as a bypass route for Yonge Street. I n support of the Applications, the proponent filed the following materials during the period October 15, 2002 to October 24, 2003: • a development concept plan; • a planning rationale (Weston Consulting, Oct. 10/02); • an overview letter of the stormwater management, site servicing and grading proposed to accommodate the development (Stantec Consulting, Oct. 2/02); • an economic and market assessment (Clayton Research, Apr. 10/03); • a traffic impact study (IBI Group, June 4/03); and • a proposed site -specific Official Plan Amendment and zoning by-law (Weston Consulting, Oct.24103). The Town of Aurora is still awaiting receipt of both a noise (vibration) feasibility study and an odour and dust report from the proponent, each addressing how land use compatibility between the proposed residential uses and the surrounding industrial area can and will be achieved. The York Region Planning and Development Services Department has advised the proponent that an environmental evaluation report must be submitted assessing the impacts of the proposed development on the Holland River valleylands. To date, a formal site plan application for the proposed development has not been submitted to the Town of Aurora. Proponent's Rationale for the Proposed Industrial Conversion: In support of the Applications, it is the proponent's position that the said lands are not suitable for industrial uses due to a challenging site topography and the lack of market —109— COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 October 27, 2004 - 3 - Report No. PL04-118 interest to develop the land for industrial purposes. It is the proponent's further contention that removal of the subject 5.07 ha parcel from the Town's vacant industrial land inventory will not have a measurable impact on the Town's employment potential. The proponent contends that the site topography and location adjacent to the Holland River valley are better suited to residential development, that the development of affordable dwelling units on site responds to a documented need for such housing in the Town of Aurora and the Region as a whole, and that the proposed development will assist the Town in addressing the shortfall of residential land available to meet the housing needs of the Town in future years. It is the further position of the proponent that the proposed residential development will have the added benefit of generating up to 137 population - related off -site jobs. Status of the Applications: The subject Applications were appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) by the proponent on October 1, 2003 on the grounds that Town Council had failed to render a decision on the Applications within the 90-day period currently prescribed in the Planning Act, 1980, R.S.O., c.P. 13, as amended. In light of the appeal, a decision on the planning merits of the development proposal now rests with the OMB and not with Town Council. In preparation for the ensuing OMB hearing, on December 16, 2003 Town Council passed a resolution directing staff and other outside experts to attend the OMB hearing to ensure that the Application not be approved. The OMB recently approved the proponent's request to have a hearing adjourned to an as yet undetermined date: as such, no formal OMB hearing date hearing has been confirmed. Despite the OMB having jurisdiction over this matter, on September 7, 2004 Town Council deemed it appropriate to hold a Public Information Session on October 27, 2004 in orderto acquaint affected members of the community with the proposal and to seek comments from the public. PREVAILING POLICY AND ZONING CONTEXT This section of the report provides an overview of the regional and local and use planning policies and zoning provisions affecting development on the subject lands. York Region Official Plan (1994, as amended): The York Region Official Plan (YROP) contains policies to guide economic, environmental and community -building decisions affecting the use of land to the year 2026. The growth forecasts contained in Chapter 5• Regional Structure and Growth Management to the YROP also establish population and employment targets for its member municipalities and Region as a whole. The YROP is organized into three key theme areas: sustainable natural environment; economic vitality; and healthy communities. The subject lands are designated "Urban Area" and "Regional Greenlands System" in the —110— COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 October 27, 2004 -4- Report No. PL04-118 YROP. The "Urban Area" designation permits a full range of urban uses on the subject property. With respect to the `Regional Greenlands System" designation, Policy 2.1.5 permits refinements to the boundaries of the System without need of an amendment to the YROP. York Region has asked the proponent for additional information to enable a more definitive determination of the limits of the "Regional Greenlands System" in the vicinity of the subject property. In this regard, Policy 2.1.3 to the YROP requires development applications within or on lands in close proximity to the Greenlands System to be accompanied by an environmental evaluation. This evaluation must address impacts of the proposed development on the environmental functions, attributes or linkages of the Regional Greenlands System, and detail mitigative measures required to ensure the System will not be adversely impacted. The proponent has yet to submit the requisite evaluation in connection with the proposed development. The introductory remarks to Chapter 3: Economic Vitality to the Regional Plan state "it is important that the Region have enough diversity in its economic base and its physical infrastructure to respond competitively to changing circumstances". The YROP also encourages both the Region and its area municipalities to promote opportunities to live and work in the same communities to reduce out -commuting to Toronto and other outlying areas. Such live/work opportunities are intended to attain a healthy balance between housing and jobs within a municipality, enable employers to access a local labour, and improve the quality of life for employees by reducing travel distances and travel time to and from work. As noted in Chapter 3 to the RYOP, it is important that the Region have enough economic diversity in its economic base and its physical infrastructure to respond competitively to changing circumstances. Thus, a fundamental objective of the RYOP (Section 3.2: Attracting Economic Development) is to enhance the Region as a place to work by encouraging and accommodating economic activities that contribute to the diversity of the economic base. Policy 3.2 to the Plan recognizes the importance of ensuring that the physical needs of businesses are addressed by, among other things, ensuring that a diversity of zoned sites are available. Policy 3.2.4 to the Regional Plan recognizes the importance of the manufacturing sector and promotes a full range of manufacturing uses in the Region. Section 3.3: Locations for Economic Development establishes policies requiring the Region and its member municipalities to monitor the supply of serviced lands for new business, and to plan employment areas to accommodate a variety of businesses. These policies seek to fulfill the Regional Plan objective of creating a range of potential locations for economic uses across the Region that support economic development. Chapter 4: Healthy Communities to the YROP acknowledges that achievement of healthy communities relies, in part, on the provision of employment opportunities. The housing policies to Chapter 4 require, among other things, that an adequate supply of housing be maintained, that a mix and range of different types, forms, sizes and tenures of housing be provided, and that the provision of affordable housing be encouraged. —111— COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 October 27, 2004 - 5 - Report No. PL04-118 Despite housing policies in the YROP that promote the provision of a sufficient supply of new and varied housing stock, Policy 4.3.8 to the Regional Plan places no obligation on a Council to support a housing proposal that does not satisfy the Community Building policies found in Section 5.2 of the Plan. In this regard, Policy 5.2.10 to the YROP requires that in planning for healthy communities, consideration must be given to the impact and compatibility of potentially conflicting land uses on each other and the surrounding area. Town of Aurora Official Plan (1991, as amended): The Town of Aurora Official Plan provides an overall framework for the future growth and orderly development of the Town to the year 2016. An overview of some of the relevant goals, objectives and policies related to industrial/employment, residential, transportation issues are provided in the following discussion. Criteria to be considered in evaluating requests for changes in land use designation, as set forth in the Town's Official Plan, are also identified. Industrial Goals Objectives and Policies The vision for the Town, as described in Part One of the Official Plan, includes inviting new and diverse employment opportunities to the Town and broadening economic activities in industrial areas. As noted in Section 3.3: Industrial Employment and Economic Base of the Town of Aurora Official Plan, the underlying goal for industrial areas is "to plan appropriate sites, support services, development and performance guidelines for industries in Aurora to ensure ongoing economic viability, assessment, and employment opportunities forthe community', Official Plan objectives to achieve this goal include maintaining a viable and diversified industrial base to provide Aurora's labour force with as many jobs as possible within the Town, and adopting planning and design standards which prevent conflict and encourage compatibility between industrial and non -industrial uses. As previously noted, the subject lands are designated "Industrial" in the local Official Plan, as are lands to the south and west (Figure 2). The lands to the east, southeast and north of the subject property along the Holland River valleylands are designated "Public Open Space". The "Industrial" designation permits such activities as manufacturing, assembly, fabrication, processing, warehousing, storage of goods and materials, transportation, transit and railway related uses, automotive workshops and public garages, utilities, wholesaling and printing establishments. Limited office, retail and residential uses (caretaker's residence) are also permitted in the "Industrial" designation provided these are accessory to a main permitted use and do not detract from the character of the industrial area. A limited number of institutional, hospitality and support uses may also be permitted within the "Industrial" designation by way of a rezoning, and provided such uses satisfy certain criteria set forth in the Town's Official Plan. —112— COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 October 27, 2004 - 6 - Report No. PL04-118 The industrial area policies to the Town's Official Plan require that site plans for industrial development ensure compatibility with adjacent non-residential uses through the provision of landscaped setbacks, walls or fences. Where outdoor storage in permitted in industrial area through zoning, the Town's Official Plan requires that such storage areas be well maintained and completely screened from adjacent uses by landscaping and/or fencing. Furthermore, Policy 3.3.1.i.vii to the local Official Plan requires that hazards or nuisances posed by industry shall be mitigated to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Environment (MOE), and may include the Ministry's separation policies. Residential Goals, Objectives and Policies As previously noted, the proponent is seeking to redesignate the subject lands from "Industrial" to "Urban Residential" to facilitate the proposed development to proceed. The residential goal of the Town's Official Plan "aims at designating residential lands and guiding development to house all segments of the anticipated population of Aurora in a healthy environment'. Specific housing objectives include: maintaining an ongoing 10 year supply of residentially designated land and a 3 year supply of draft approved and registered lots at all times; maintaining, enhancing and protecting existing residential areas; encouraging diversified residential communities; providing a sufficient number of appropriate and affordable housing units to meet the needs of current and future residents; and directing new residential development to suitable locations. Section 3.1.3.b.iv to the local Official Plan defines affordable housing as "not costing more annuallythan 30%of the gross annual household earnings of the households within the lowest 60% of the income distribution for the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area". The "Urban Residential" policies permit a full range of housing types distributed amongst low, medium and high density housing areas. Townhouses with a height of 3 to 4 storeys and developed at a density of 25 to 50 units per net residential hectare (upnrh) are permitted in medium density housing areas. Apartment buildings are permitted in high density housing areas subject to a height cap of 7 storeys and a permissible density range of 50 to 111 upnrh. Pursuant to the Town of Aurora Official Plan, density increases of up to 60 upnrh and 150 upnrh are permitted in the medium and high density housing areas, respectively, through bonusing. Section 4.5: Bonusing of the Town's Official Plan permits Town Council, at its discretion, to allow increases in density and height through bonusing in exchange for the provision of facilities, services or matters that reflect the goals and objectives of the Official Plan. Such objectives include contributions towards "socially assisted housing" and "supportive housing". It is worth highlighting that contributions toward the provision of affordable housing do not specifically qualify for bonusing under Section 4.5 of the Plan. Based on the "Urban Residential" policies of the Town's Official Plan, the apartment and townhouse components of the proponent's development plan would be considered high and medium density residential development, respectively. In this regard, the 273-unit concept plan filed by the proponent yields a density of approximately 100 upnrh for the apartment component and 48 upnrh forthe townhouse component for an overall residential —113— COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 October 27, 2004 - 7 - Report No. PL04-118 density of 57 upnrh across the site. In contrast, the density bonusing being sought by the proponent reflects the maximum density of 60 upnrh permitted for townhouses in medium density residential areas, and 120 upnrh forthe apartment component of the project versus the 150 upnrh density cap permitted for such uses in the Town's high density residential areas. The Town's Official Plan states that medium density areas are permitted: near or adjacent to commercial centres and collector intersections; to buffer high from low densities; throughout low -density areas to create diversified residential communities; and on sites where the capacity of utilities, the transportation network, community and neighbourhood services can absorb the impact of the proposed development. Similarly, high density areas are permitted: near or adjacent to community commercial or service commercial centres, educational, recreational, open space and other community services; near or adjacent to arterial or major roads, transit and commuter services, and where the capacity of utilities, the transportation network, community and neighbourhood services can absorb the impact of the proposed development. Policy 3.1.1.h.viii to the Town of Aurora Official Plan notes that where residential uses are proposed adjacent to non-residential uses, conflicts between uses shall be prevented through use of distance separation (as outlined by the MOE) or other measures so that undue nuisance or hazard from noise, smell, vibration, traffic, chemicals or processes does not occur. Official Plan Amendments Section 4.2.1 to the Town's Official Plan establishes a number of general criteria to be used when considering a change to the Official Plan. In addition, Section 4.2.1 identifies the following criteria to be applied when considering a change in land use designation. • Suitability of the area for the proposed uses with respect to the physical characteristics of the area, adequacy of hard and soft services to accommodate the change in use, social, environmental and visual effects, and the comments offered by affected review agencies. • The extent to which existing areas designated for the proposed use is developed. • Compatibility of the proposed use with the surrounding area. • Effect on population projections and finances of the municipality. • Compliance with the land use goals, objectives and policies of the Official Plan. • Provision for affordable housing and maintenance of a compact urban form. Town's Five -Year Official Plan Review/Employment Land Retention Strategy: Consistent with the Planning Act requirement that municipalities review their official plans at five-year intervals, the Town of Aurora has recently completed its five-year official plan —114— COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 8, 2005 October 27, 2004 - 8 - Report No. PL04-118 review. The review, undertaken by Hemson Consulting Inc. on behalf of the Town recommended a number of initiatives and strategic directions to assist the Town in continuing to effectively manage growth in Aurora. Arising out of this review was the preparation of an employment land retention strategy to ensure that the remaining land supply in the Town will develop in a manner consistent with the best long-term interests of the community. The "Town of Aurora Employment Land Retention Strategy" (Hemson Consulting Inc, May 2004) recommends that the following new policies be introduced into the local Official Plan. That Council shall not approve applications for the redesignation of employment lands to other urban uses that involve or are based upon disagreement with or challenges to the overall amount of employment lands designated in the Town, including arguments of scale, outside of a comprehensive growth management processor five-year official . plan review. Otherwise, employment lands shall only be redesignated to other urban uses upon satisfying two tests, as follows: the proponent shall have the onus of demonstrating that the site cannot be developed for any employment land use due to a valid physical planning reasons such as site configuration, access, or the surrounding land use context; 2. the proponent shall have the onus of demonstrating that the proposed alternative land use is compatible with all land uses permitted on surrounding and nearby lands, will not cause any negative effects on the existing or prospective employment land uses, including potential destabilizing effects, and will also be beneficial to the Town in the areas of: - contributing to the overall intent and goals of the Town's policies; - demands on servicing and infrastructure; - fiscal impacts; and - alternate locations within the Town to accommodate the proposed use. The proposed conversion policies require that an application to redesignate employment land not be approved if the first test cannot be met. Furthermore, any technical reports filed in support of the conversion must be subjected to a full peer review process, at the expense of the proponent. The proposed Employment Land Retention Strategy was presented to Town Council at a public meeting held on June 23, 2004.. At that meeting, Council moved that "staff consider comments received at the Public Meeting pertaining to the proposed Official Plan Amendment policies set out within the Strategy; and that staff be directed to work with Hemson Consulting inc. to refine the document and present the implementing Official Plan Amendment to Council upon completion." -115- COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 October 27, 2004 - 9 - Report No. PL04-118 Zoning By-law: Existing Zoning The subject lands are presently zoned "General Industrial (M2) Zone" and "General Industrial (M2-3) Exception Zone" in Town of Aurora Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2213- 78, as amended. The "M2 Zone" applies to the three smaller parcels comprising roughly 2.04 'ha in total area and situated along Industrial Parkway North, in keeping with the zoning of the developed industrial parcels to the south and west of the subject lands. The "M2-3 Exception Zone" applies to the easterly 3.03 ha parcel within the development site (Figure 3). The following list of uses are permitted in both the "M2 Zone" and the "M2-3 Exception Zone": • warehouses and industrial uses including contractors yards, food processing establishments, light metal products plants, lumberyards, machine or welding shops, plumbing shops, printing establishments, saw or planing mills, and sheet metal shops, however not including any obnoxious use • ancillary retail uses, subject to certain floor area caps • commercial self storage facilities • data processing centres • fitness centres, recreation centres and private clubs provided that no part of the building in which such uses are located is used for any commercial self -storage facility, warehouse, industrial use, motor vehicle body shop, or motor vehicle repair garage • laundries • motor vehicle body shops, rental establishments and repair garages • office use accessory to a permitted use on the same premise as well as offices (other than the offices of a doctor or drugless practitioner) in multi -premises buildings subject to certain combined use and floor area restrictions • repair shops • research labs • trade schools • transportation terminals • use of land, building or structure for the purpose of public service, as permitted in all land use zoned by Section 6.32 of Zoning By-law 2213-78. Open or outdoor storage accessory to a main use is,permitted in the "M2 Zone" where the main use is contained within a building and subject to storage occurring only in side or rear yards in areas screened from the streets by an appropriate wall or fence. Parking of commercial vehicles on a property is similarly permitted. The "M2 Zone" permits maximum building heights of 10 m to 15 m (dependent on site area) and establishes minimum building setbacks of 9 and side yards. Buildings greaterthan 10 m in height on for a minimum side yard of 6 m. m for rear yards and 3 m for front lands zoned "M2" triggerthe need —116— COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 October 27, 2004 - 10 - Report No. PL04-118 The standard "M2 Zone" provisions apply in the "M2-3 Exception Zone" with the exception that a minimum lot frontage of 50 m is required in the "M2-3 Exception Zone" versus 30 m in the "M2 Zone". The general provisions for industrial zones include a requirement that "where an Industrial (M) Zone abuts a Residential Zone ora Holding zone designated forresidential purposes in the Official Plan, or is separated from such Residential or Holding Zone by a street, highway, right-of-way or vacant land only, any new industrial building shall be located a minimum of 60 m away from any existing residential building. Where no residential building exists, the distance shall be calculated using the minimum applicable yard requirements for the residential zone." Proposed Zoning As previously noted, the proponent is seeking to zone the subject lands "RA1-X Exception Zone", "R6-X Exception Zone" and "O-X Exception Zone" to accommodate the proposed apartment building, townhouses units and community park, respectively. The base "RA1", "R6" and "O" zone categories permit apartments, townhouses and parks, respectively; however, the proponent has requested several site -specific exceptions to the base zone provisions to accommodate the design and layout of the proposed development. It should be noted that a minimum 7.5 m building setback is proposed for the townhouse units adjacent to the common lot line shared with the industrially zoned lands to the south. Although a standard 7.5 m minimum rear yard is required in the base "R6" Zone, no increased setback is proposed in this location of the property to address the presence of designated and zoned industrial lands to the south. In addition, a minimum front yard setback of 6.0 m is proposed along Industrial Parkway North in the proponent's implementing zoning bylaw. Although the rate of on -site parking proposed to accommodate the 82 apartment units satisfies the Town's minimum requirement of 1.5 spaces per unit, the amount of on -site parking to serve the townhouse units contravenes Town Council's Resolution No. 31-99 (passed November 10, 1999) that requires the provision of a minimum of two parking spaces per unit in a driveway. Based on the proponent's concept plan depicting an attached garage for each townhouse unit, adherence to Council Resolution No. 31-99 would translate into the need for 3 parking spaces per unit. Both the draft Official Plan Amendment and draft implementing zoning by-law filed on behalf of the proponent identify a maximum of 273 dwelling units on site, consisting of 82 apartments and 191 townhouse units. Curiously, these same draft amendments also include density bonusing policies and provisions would enable development of up to 337 dwelling units (98 apartments and 239 townhouses). The discrepancy between the maximum unit yields permitted by the proponent's amendment documents versus those reflected in its accompanying concept plan needs to be resolved by the proponent. —117— COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 October 27, 2004 - 11 - Report No. PL04-118 AGENCY/DEPARTMENT COMMENTS A summary of comments received to date from external agencies and Town Departments related to the subject Application and supporting studies is provided below in this section of the report. The following comments are based upon the 273-unit dwelling unit proposal reflected in the proponent's concept plan. If the proponent intends to pursue higher densities on site through the density bonusing provisions as per its draft Official Plan Amendment and associated implementing zoning by-law, commenting agencies and departments may need to revise their comments to reflect the associated higher dwelling unit yields. York Region In comments dated October 20, 2003, the York Region Planning and Development Services Department advised that the Regional Development Committee, comprised of representatives from Regional Departments, has undertaken a review of the subject development applications. The Region further confirmed that the subject lands are designated "Urban Area" and "Regional Greenlands System" in the York Region Official Plan. Based on a review of the subject development applications, the Region has confirmed that it does not support the proposed change in land use from industrial to residential on the basis that the highest and best use of the property is for industrial and related employment uses. It is the further opinion of Regional staff that retaining the subject lands for industrial/employment purposes is consistent with the "economic vitality" policies of the YROP. School Boards In comments dated September 9, 2004, the York Catholic District School Board confirmed that development of 191 townhouses and 82 apartments on the subject lands will generate approximately 37 elementary students. These students would be accommodated at the new Bayview/Wellington Elementary School slated to open in September 2005. Accordingly to the Board, this host school is expected to be operating at 67% of its Board Rated capacity of 549 pupil places as of October 2005. The York Region District School Board indicated in its letter of September 13, 2004 thatthe proposed development would generate 56 public elementary students. The Board further advised that although the subject lands are within the Northern Lights Public School boundary, a projected enrolment of 7�O students (exclusive of the subject development proposal) versus a planned capacity of 608 students means that the Board will need to consider other school locations in Aurora to accommodate students from the subject development. Furthermore, the York Region District School Board has confirmed that students from this development will require bussing to reach available school accommodation, potentially at a number of different schools. Accordingly, the Board notes —118— COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 October 27, 2004 - 12 - Report No. PL04-118 that the issue of bus pick-up and drop-off needs to be addressed along with provisions for adequate access and egress on the subject property for all students. Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority In comments dated October 17, 2003, the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority cited no objection to the proposed development. The Authority confirmed that a permit would be required prior to any on -site works being undertaken since the development property is partially within the Fill Regulated Area and the Regional Storm Flood Plain. Prior to development approval, the proponent will also be required to submit a satisfactory stormwater management report and a detailed erosion and sediment control plan for approval, The Conservation Authority has also recommended that a site visit attended by the proponent, Town and Authority staff be undertaken to determine environmental features and top -of -bank issues. Central York Fire Services Central York Fire Services confirmed in comments dated October 27, 2003 that it has some concerns regarding the proposed access to the development as well as the potential for noise and odour complaints from future residents due to the location of the proposed residential development within an established industrial area. Aurora Hydro In comments dated November 10, 2003, Aurora Hydro expressed no objection to the development. Aurora Hydro confirmed that electrical servicing of the development will be from Industrial Parkway North and, further, that the proponent will be responsible for: • entering into an Electrical Plant Agreement with Aurora Hydro; • submitting electrical installation construction plans; • ensuring that the proposed electrical installation forthe condominium will be privately - owned and maintained by the Condominium Corporation with Aurora Hydro being the controlling authority over the private owned plant; and • all costs involving the engineering, installation and connection of the proposed electrical plant. Town of Aurora Economic Development Division In comments dated January 13, 2003, the Town's Economic Development Division confirmed its review of the proponent's economic and market assessment and the development applications. This Division has advised that it does not support the proposed industrial conversion due to the associated loss of employment lands. In its comments, the Economic Development Division emphasizes the need forthe Town to protect its economic future by supporting and offering a supply of vacant employment lands of varying sizes and locations. The benefits of retaining larger vacant employment parcels such as the subject 5.07 he site within the Town's business parks was also highlighted. In this regard, the Economic Development Division noted that the subject 5.07 ha parcel alone accounts for one-third of the total current vacant employment land inventory in the Industrial Parkway North Employment Area. —119— COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 October 27, 2004 - 13 - Report No. PL04-118 It is the further position of the Division that retention of employment generating lands will assist the Town of Aurora in obtaining more favourable assessment targets and achieving more balanced growth forthe Town. According to the Economic Development Division, the subject site has the potential to generate up to 225 jobs. Town of Aurora Leisure Services Department In comments dated October 6, 2004, the Town's Leisure Services Department expressed concerns with the proposed development due to potential conflicts between the proposed residential uses and the surrounding industrial area. This Department considers the proposed residential uses incompatible with the surrounding industrial area in the absence of extensive buffering and mitigation and provisions of adequate setbacks to accommodate appropriate buffering. The Leisure Services Department also confirmed that the amount of parkland dedication reflected on the proponent's concept plan is incorrect and insufficient since the greater of 1.0 ha per 300 units or 5% of the developable site area is required in accordance with the Town's policies. Alternately, the Town may require a cash -in -lieu of parkland arrangement, being the preferred approach identified for the subject development by the Leisure Services Department. Consequently, this Department has recommended elimination of the proposed 0.265 ha community park on -site should the OMB approve the development, and that provisions for on -site private playground amenities be made should the development proceed by way of plan of condominium. The Leisure Services Department also confirmed the need for the proponent to address internal and external pedestrian and vehicular movement. Specific concern was expressed regarding the impact of the development on pedestrian, cyclist and vehicle traffic on Industrial Parkway North given the absence of sidewalks along this roadway, the high traffic volumes on the roadway, and the reduced sightlines due to road grades and curvatures. According to this Department, consideration also needs to be given to the provision of pedestrian and bicycle routes connecting the. subject development to the Holland River valley trail, Lambert Wilson Park and the residential/commercial neighbourhoods located east of the Holland River. Finally, the Leisure Services Department confirmed the requirement for fencing to be installed along all property boundaries abutting Town -owned open space and parklands with controlled points of common access (gates) provided in a location approved by the Town. Town of Aurora Public Works Department In comments dated October 31, 2003, November 3, 2003 and October 15, 2004, the Town's Public Works Department confirmed its review of the proponent's traffic impact study and the associated development applications. Based on this review, it was recommended that the southerly access to the property not be approved due to sightline deficiencies. This Department also raised concern regarding the absence of sidewalks along Industrial Parkway North to accommodate pedestrians. —120— COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 October 27, 2004 - 14 - Report No. PL04-118 With respect to internal transportation issues, the Department identified potential on -site queuing problems arising from the proximity of a proposed internal traffic circle to the proposed southerly access to Industrial Parkway North. The Public Works Department also noted that insufficient on -site parking is provided for the proposed townhouses pursuant to Town Council Resolution No. 31-99. The proposal to provide 57 additional parking spaces in clusters throughout the development also was also flagged as a concern due to the inaccessibility of these spaces to a number of townhouses units and, hence, the need to redistribute these spaces throughout the site. Additional information from the proponent related to stormwater management issues has also been requested by the Public Works Department. This Department also noted that approval of proposed engineering works will be required from other affected review agencies. The need for the proponent to file an environmental site assessment report, a geotechnical report, a stormwater management report and a noise/vibration report as part of the site plan process was also confirmed by the Town's Public Works Department. The Department also confirmed that a thorough capacity study of the Town's water distribution system must be submitted prior to development proceeding to determine if the development can be adequately serviced. Town of Aurora Buildinq Department In comments dated October 8, 2003, the Town's Building Department expressed concerns with the proposed development since it entails the elimination of designated employment lands in a planned industrial corridor. A concern with.inadequate on -site parking provisions forthe proposed townhouses units was also raised in light of Council Resolution No. 31-99, as was the lack of a private parking area for the apartment units. Safety concerns related to access onto Industrial Parkway North was also highlighted given the curvature of sections of the road adjacent to the subject property. OTHER COMMENTS The Town of Aurora Planning Department has the following comments to offer related to the subject development proposal and the related supporting materials filed by the proponent. These comments are organized by general topic for ease of presentation. LOCATIONAL CONTEXT The subject property is located within the largely developed Industrial Parkway North Employment Area, being a centrally -located industrial area to the Town. It has been the Town's long-standing expectation that the subject lands would develop for industrial or employment uses since the lands have been consistently designated for such purposes for over 20 years. Lands surrounding the subject property are designated, zoned and developed for industrial and open space purposes, that latter use associated with the presence of the Holland River valley that borders the subject property to the east and north. The surrounding industrial properties are currently zoned "M2" permitting a full range of industrial uses. —121— COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 October 27, 2004 - 15 - Report No. PL04-118 It is the opinion of the Planning Department that a residential development on the subject lands will have no beneficial impact on the surrounding industries. Furthermore, injection of a residential development into a non-residential area will result in the creation of an isolated residential enclave that lacks connectivity with other residential areas in the Town. In the Department's opinion, the proposed residential development does not constitute a logical extension or completion of an existing residential community, and will not serve to enhance the existing residential community located across the Holland River. The Holland River valleylands function as a physical land use separator between the residential uses and the Industrial North Industrial Parkway Employment Area. Section 3.1.1.d of the Town of Aurora Official Plan directs medium and high density residential areas to locations near or adjacent to commercial centres and, in the case of high density areas, near or adjacent to transit services. In the case of transit, the proponent's traffic impact study confirms that no transit services are available in close proximity to the subject lands or along St. John's Sideroad. The absence of transit services coupled with the lack of existing or designated commercial centres proximate to the subject lands translates into a need for future residents to travel by car for everyday shopping needs. LAND USE COMPATIBILITY For the reasons elaborated upon in this section of the planning staff report, the Planning Department is concerned that introduction of sensitive residential uses in close proximity to existing industrial uses may place neighbouring industries at risk, pose constraints on future development opportunities at surrounding industrial sites, and may have a destabilizing effect on the surrounding employment area. Such impacts undermine and jeopardize future economic development in this portion of the Town. Furthermore, the proximity of incompatible industrial uses to the proposed residential development may adversely impact the living environment of future residents of the development. Potential adverse impacts that may arise when residential uses are located adjacent to industrial uses relate to traffic mixing, noise, vibration, odour and dust, lighting, and trespass, among others. A general discussion of some of these potential impacts follows. Traffic Issues From a traffic perspective, complaints from future residents of the proposed development may result in requests for lower traffic speeds, restriction on truck traffic, and introduction of traffic calming measures on Industrial Parkway North, -all of which would affect the planned role and function of this designated truck route. Safety issues that may result from the mixing of heavy trucks with pedestrians, cyclists and motorists generated by the development is also of concern. This traffic mixing concern is further compounded by the lack of sidewalks along Industrial Parkway North. Noise Issues As previously noted, Policy 3.3.1,Lvii to the Town of Aurora Official Plan requires that hazards or nuisances posed by industry shall be mitigated to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Environment (MOE), and may include the Ministry's separation policies. —122— COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 October 27, 2004 - 16 - Report No. PL04-118 As noted earlier in this report, the proponent has yet to file a noise feasibility study in support of the proposed change in land use from industrial to residential. This report must address how land use compatibility between the proposed residential uses and the surrounding industrial area can and will be achieved and recommend appropriate measures to ensure compliance with applicable MOE requirements. In Ontario, environmental noise assessment pertaining to land use planning and compatibility of proposed noise -sensitive development adjacent to industrial uses are normally assessed.in accordance with or against the MOE's Guidelines as set forth in the following publications: Land Use Compatibility— MOE Guideline D-1" (July 1995); "Noise Assessment Criteria in Land Use Planning" MOE Publication LU-131 (Oct.1997); and "Compatibility Between Industrial Facilities and Sensitive Land Uses— MOE Guideline D-6" (Aug.1997). Among other things, MOE Guideline D-1 identifies the need to employ various buffers to prevent or minimize adverse effects arising from incompatible uses, with distance separation confirmed as the preferred method of mitigation. MOE Guideline D-6 identifies potential influence areas and recommends minimum distance separations associated with specific classes of industry. Guideline D-6 also states that a proponent for a change in land use should submit a noise feasibility study to the local planning approval authority identifying required mitigation measures to protect incompatible uses from each other. The Town is still awaiting receipt of the noise feasibility study required to be submitted in support of the proposed change in land use. It should be noted that there are somewhat different standards set out in the MOE publications for demonstrating feasibility for a land use (Publication LU-131) versus enforcement testing in the event of a complaint lodged against an industry (Publication NPC-205). It is worth highlighting that once a proposed residential use is approved adjacent to an industrial use, the onus for compliance with Provincial requirements rests with the neighbouring industry, regardless of what use was there first. Furthermore, differences between MOE guidelines contained in MOE Publications NPC-205and LU-131 exist which, in some cases, result in more stringent requirements under NPC-205bywhich the industry must later abide. It is important to highlight that proposals to expand, reuse or redevelop surrounding industrial properties in the future would need to meet MOE compliance requirements, which can translate into the need for expensive mitigation measures if sensitive land uses are located close to the industrial .property(s). This same situation holds true in the event of changes to processes operated on an industrial property. Building Siting Constraints Residential development on the subject lands as currently proposed will have an impact on the ability to construct new industrial buildings on neighbouring industrial properties. —123— COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 October 27, 2004 - 17 - Report No. PL04-118 As previously noted, a rear yard building setback of 7.5 m is proposed from the extensive common southerly property line shared with the industrial lands at 205 Industrial Parkway North. Pursuant to Town of Aurora Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2213-78, any new industrial building must be located a minimum of 60 m away from any existing residential building. Consequently, a minimum interior side yard setback of 52.5 m would be required for any new industrial building constructed at 205 Industrial Parkway North versus the standard 3 m setback requirement that would prevail if the subject lands were retained for employment uses. Similarly, any future plans to intensify or redevelop the abutting industrial property would need to meet these same setback requirements. It is worth noting that the existing industrial building at 205 Industrial Parkway North is currently located a minimum of 48.76 m from this common lot line and a site plan application has recently been filed to construct a 8 030 mZ building addition as close as 24.11 m to the north lot line. In the case of the industrial property at 226 Industrial Parkway North, located west of the subject property, a minimum building separation of 60 m between an industrial building on this property and a residential building on the development site would similarly apply. In light of the proponent's intention to site the proposed apartment building a distance of 3 m from the front lot line, and given that Industrial Parkway North has a right-of-way width of only 20 m, any new industrial building at 226 Industrial Parkway North would have to be set back a minimum distance of 34 m from the front lot line along Industrial Parkway North. In contrast, the standard " M2 Zone" provisions applicable to the said industrial property would require a minimum front yard of 6 m if the proponent's lands were retained for employment uses. The site plan records on file with the Town of Aurora indicate that the existing industrial mall at 226 Industrial Parkway North is located 14.2 m from the front lot line and that the property has a minimum site depth of only 86.28 m. LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT LAND The Planning Department is particularly concerned with the loss of employment land arising from the proposed development. The need to retain the Town's current stock of employment lands is well documented in the Employment Land Retention Strategy (May 2004) prepared by Hemson Consulting. As noted in the Strategy, the Town continues to be under pressure to redesignate employment land to other urban uses due to a constrained land supply in the municipality and the increased land value that can be realized by the landowner if a conversion is allowed. As highlighted in the Strategy, redesignation of employment lands can have a destabilizing effect and can reduce opportunities available to the municipality to accommodate certain types of uses. Furthermore, redesignation of employment lands undermines efforts to achieve a balanced and healthy community achieved, in part, by promoting live/work relationships, providing for a greater diversity in property assessment base to adjust for market cycles, and securing a greater long-term net fiscal benefit to the municipality. —124— COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 October 27, 2004 - 18 - Report No, PL04-118 In order to attract a variety of employment uses, it is essential that the full range of uses currently permitted on the subject lands and on surrounding industrial properties be protected by ensuring that new development in the area in compatible with existing, expanded and future uses permitted by the current zoning. The economic and market assessment filed by the proponent in support of the proposed industrial conversion reaches the following three major conclusions: industrial uses on the subject lands are unlikely to occur in the medium and longer term; the Town of Aurora is expected to have a significant residential land shortfall; and the redesignation of the subject lands is not expected to have a measurable impact on Aurora's employment potential. Despite these conclusions, the report fails to make the case that the proposal to redesignate the subject site from industrial to residential represents good planning. The proponent's argument that that topography of the site affects its competitive positioning is not compelling since topography does not appear to have precluded the industrial development of other sites in the area. The existing industrial property to the west at 226 Industrial Parkway North, developed by Revlis Securities Ltd. in the late 1980s, is a case in point. These lands continue to fulfill a role in the Town's supply of employment lands. While the Town of Aurora does not have sufficient residential land supply to meet all anticipated future population projections, particularly as it relates to ground -related housing, there are no policies in eitherthe Regional Official Plan or the Town's Official Plan that promote the redesignation of employment lands to achieve stated housing supply objectives. Instead, both the YROP and the local Official Plan contains policies aimed at reducing land use conflicts that may arise due to land use incompatibility. The Clayton report also ignores that development of the subject lands for employment uses will assist in achieving the Region's and the Town's planning goals, particularly related to employment land and economic vitality. The proponent argues that loss of the subject lands is insignificant in the context of the Town's overall total employment land supply. This type of micro -level argument is one of scale that fails when viewed in a broader policy context and when broader planning principles are applied. Although no single parcel of land can ever be viewed as a "significant portion" of any Town -wide measure of development, this same argument also holds true for residential lands. For example, the ability of the subject lands to increase the Town's available residential land inventory is similarly insignificant if measured against overall Town -wide development. Site Servicing York Region staff has confirmed that although sanitary and water capacity is available to accommodate industrial development on the subject lands, no such. committed servicing capacity is currently available to accommodate for the proposed residential development, —125— COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 8, 2005 October 27, 2004 - 19 - Report No. PL04-118 given the need for an Official Plan Amendment and a rezoning. The Region has recently advised that additional capacity will not be available until at mid 2008. In the event the OMB approves the development proposal, allocation of the needed servicing capacity will need to be resolved prior to development proceeding. NEXT STEPS Following the October 27, 2004 Public Information Session, a recommendation report documenting public comments and concerns received at the Public Information Session will be prepared by the Town's Planning Department for consideration by Town Council. Upon consideration of the staff report, Town Council is expected to render a formal position on the merits of the development proposal and forward the position of the Town to the OMB. The York Regional Planning and Development Services Department has indicated that a planning staff report on the subject development proposal will be presented to Regional Council once Town of Aurora Council has adopted a formal position on the matter. This regional staff report is expected to address the merits of the proposal in greater detail based on applicable provincial and regional planning policies as well as servicing opportunities and constraints. ATTACHMENTS Figures Figure 1 — Location Plan Figure 2 — Official Plan Designation Figure 3 — Existing Zoning Figure 4 — Proposed Plan PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW Management Team Meeting — October 20, 2004 Prepared by., Carol -Anne Munroe, 416-923-6630 ext. 5 Sorensen Gravely Lowes Planning Associates Inc. ,zz an rbert irector of Planning —126—